Wookieepedia:Good article nominations/Millennial Celebration Invitation

< 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.

Millennial Celebration Invitation

  • Nominated by: DwartiiDelver (talk) 19:02, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Nomination comments: At last, another Dwartii-related nomination

(3 ACs/2 Users/5 Total)

(Votes required: No additional votes required to pass, please consider reviewing another article.)

Support

  1. Nice work Fan26 (Talk) 00:29, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
  2. GOod job VergenceScatter (talk) 01:26, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
  3. ACvote Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 22:47, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
  4. ACvote MasterFredCommerce Guild(talk) 18:12, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
  5. ACvote Tommy-Macaroni 11:47, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Object

Macaroni
  • The actual card should be included in ref 2 using {{SWCT}}.
    • Added.
  • Ref 1 is used two consecutive times in Behind the scenes without a seperate ref in between, so the first one can be removed. JediMasterMacaroniAdmiral Ackbar RH(Conversation) 00:29, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
Fred strikes back
  • The "Description" section needs to start off reintroducing the topic, similar to the first sentence of the introduction. Just a simple, "The Millennial Celebration Invitation was a poster commemorating yada yada" should suffice. MasterFredCommerce Guild(talk) 01:18, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Toprawa
  • Would like to request verification that calling Coruscant the galactic capital can actually be referenced to this source, as this is a commonly made claim that often isn't directly attributable to most things.
    • The closest thing is the following passage, in reference to the end of the Jedi-Sith War: "The Republic victory was so definitive that it reinvented itself, resettling its capital on Coruscant after a devastating ouster." Do you think that's enough to call Coruscant the "galactic capital" here, or should another source be used?
      • I'd definitely recommend finding a different source for that statement then. Looks like the Coruscant DB entry on StarWars.com will work. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 00:53, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
        • Understood. I've updated it now. DwartiiDelver (talk) 01:15, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
          • Propaganda doesn't state that this is Coruscant in this image? Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 02:42, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
            • It does not. I had initially thought that the buildings and whatnot were enough to state that it was Coruscant, though perhaps that wasn't the right call—it's been removed now. DwartiiDelver (talk) 22:40, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I'm going to say we don't need the vague date range at the beginning of the History section. It offers very little vital context and can more easily just be introduced with exactly the wording that follows in that sentence. Readers can explore Valorum's article for details on his years in office.
    • Fine by me—removed.
  • I don't think the BTS explanation of the inconsistency with the anniversary dating is all that relevant to the article here. The history and details of the poster itself don't change, right? So the discussion of the dating inconsistency belongs on another article. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 02:30, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
    • I was wondering about that myself—I've taken it out, now. DwartiiDelver (talk) 00:15, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Comments

Approved as a Good article by AgriCorps 11:47, 21 February 2021 (UTC)