Wookieepedia:Good article nominations/Neutralizer-class bomber

< 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.

Neutralizer-class bomber

  • Nominated by: Grunny (Talk) 09:25, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Nomination comments: Nice and short at 433 words

(3 ACs/5 Users/8 Total)

Support

  1. SoresuMakashi(Everything I tell you is the truth) 10:09, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  2. Good work! Jonjedigrandmaster (Jedi Beacon) 11:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  3. Nice job Grunny. Kilson Likes PIE 17:18, 02 July 09 (UTC)
  4. ACvote Grand Moff Tranner Imperial Department of Military Research (Comlink) 18:23, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  5. ACvote Grunny! Chack Jadson (Talk) 18:29, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  6. ACvote Noice, Grunny. CC7567 (talk) 19:08, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  7. Nice article from such a limited sourceOmicron 21:43, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  8. —Master Jonathan(Jedi Council Chambers) 04:28, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Object

  1. The Grand Master
    • Characteristics (Nitpicking): "Featuring impressive shields for a fighter of its size, the Neutralizer-class fighter was nimble for a bomber..." You just mentioned how it was not as agile as the Predator, but now you're calling it nimble. I understand that both of these comparisons are relative to other things, however, this doesn't really give the reader a good idea of whether or not they are agile at all. Please clarify.
      • That's how the information is presented in the source without any clarification. I agree it's not the best wording but it's what I have to work with unfortunately :P.
    • History: "During the conflict between the Sith-backed Fel Empire and the Galactic Alliance beginning 127 ABY—known as the Sith-Imperial War—the Neutralizer-class bomber was developed by Sienar Fleet Systems' engineers by adapting the designs of the Predator-class starfighter." Lots of info packed into one sentence; maybe break it up into two to let it flow better.
      • I'd prefer not to. The information is important as context for the time and breaking it up would only disrupt flow unnecessarily.
    • History: using "compared to" and "relatively" in the same sentence is rather redundant.
      • Removed relatively :).
    • Good work, as always :). Jonjedigrandmaster (Jedi Beacon) 18:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Thanks for the review as always, Jon :-). Grunny (Talk) 05:17, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  2. From the Council Chambers:
    • "[I]ts primary purpose was strafing enemy ground emplacements and breaking open defensible positions": This phrase is used in both the role and history sections with the exact same words in each one. Maybe this is nitpicking a little, but I feel it would be better if one was reworded.
      • Reworded a little. Grunny (Talk) 09:45, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
    • And that's it. Great job. —Master Jonathan(Jedi Council Chambers) 04:54, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Comments

Approved as a Good article by AgriCorps 23:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC)