Wookieepedia:Good article nominations/Nam'ta

< Wookieepedia:Good article nominations
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a good article nomination that was unsuccessful. Please do not modify it.

Nam'ta

  • Nominated by: Eyrezer (talk) 02:41, July 6, 2013 (UTC)
  • Nomination comments: CA pushed over the limit by TOR.

(1 ACs/3 Users/4 Total)

Support

  1. 501st dogma(talk) 12:32, July 12, 2013 (UTC)
  2. ACvote Sir Cavalier of OneFarStar(Squadron channel) 11:10, July 24, 2013 (UTC)
  3. Ayrehead02 (talk) 10:05, July 31, 2013 (UTC)
  4. Exiled Jedi Oldrepublic crest (Greetings) 21:39, August 13, 2013 (UTC)

Object

501
  • Shouldn't the routes section of the infobox be filled with the Relgim Run?
  • The Nam'ta system is not mentioned in the body.
  • 501st dogma(talk) 23:31, July 7, 2013 (UTC)
    • Not sure. I've always felt that it is more appropriate to have the trade routes in the system infobox, rather than the planet. Nonetheless, added. --Eyrezer (talk) 11:28, July 9, 2013 (UTC)
Floyd
  • One extremely nitpicky thing: In the intro you say it's red and in the body you say it's reddish-orange. Be consistent in both IFYLOFD (Enter the Floydome) 03:18, August 15, 2013 (UTC)
    • I added a bit more detail. --Eyrezer (talk) 01:31, August 17, 2013 (UTC)
501st Floygma
  • I believe Second Great Galactic War is a conjectural name and it would be best if you pipelinked it instead of using that name.
    • I am led to believe that it has now been identified as simply the "Galactic War", reflected in the article. --Eyrezer (talk) 03:45, August 24, 2013 (UTC)
  • "Nam'ta was located within the Pentastar Alignment", are you saying that it's part of the faction or that it was located within the territory ruled by said faction? If it's the latter, you'll need to correct (slightly) that sentence.
    • The latter; adjusted. --Eyrezer (talk) 03:45, August 24, 2013 (UTC)
  • Isn't there anymore info in the Atlas' maps about its location and organizations-affiliated territories the planet fell within? Winterz (talk) 14:41, August 20, 2013 (UTC)
Toprawa
  • The link in Reference 6 is dead. Is there no way you can find an archived version? Otherwise, it's not really serving the purpose of referencing the given material.
  • If one reference item is going to use page numbers, I feel like all applicable items should also use page numbers of consistency. Specifically, Reference 7. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 04:08, August 26, 2013 (UTC)

Comments

Vote to remove nomination (AC only)

  1. ACvote Unaddressed objections for two weeks. CC7567 (talk) 14:52, September 10, 2013 (UTC)
  2. ACvote Somewhat active, 2 talk page warnings. I'm not sure there's anything else we can do to prevent this act. Winterz (talk) 14:58, September 10, 2013 (UTC)
  3. ACvote Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 15:58, September 10, 2013 (UTC)