Wookieepedia:Good article nominations/Pao's rifle

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The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a Good article nomination that was withdrawn.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

Pao's rifle

  • Nominated by: Mor9347 ForPipadaLogo-UserImage (Talk) 12:05, 24 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Nomination comments:
  • Date Archived: 18:00, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Final word count: 412 words (57 introduction, 217 body, 138 behind the scenes)
  • Word count at nomination time: 342 words (59 introduction, 201 body, 82 behind the scenes)
  • WookieeProject (optional): WP:SWCT

(0 ACs/1 Users/1 Total)

(Votes required: 3 AC vote(s) required to reach minimum. Additional 1 user or 1 AC vote required to pass.)

Support votes

  1. SorcererSupreme21 (talk) 19:33, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Objections

StarWarsFan
  • In the description, sling links to a Legends page. Is there a fitting canon page it can link to?-StarWarsFan327 (talk) 11:32, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
    • Nope, completely my mistake. removed and reworded a small bit there. Mor9347 ForPipadaLogo-UserImage (Talk) 20:42, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
spookly
  • 1stm are generally considered relevant to document in the BTS as its the first introduction of a subject (which a reader might find interesting), unless there is an edge reason for excluding it. Or, if the trailer is a holdover of a copy-paste and it isnt actually a 1stm, then that would also be something to resolve. If examples needed, there are other RO noms that can be pulled up re: Celebration trailer.—spookywillowwtalk 21:40, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
    • I reviewed every Pao source before copying them over to the rifle page so there's no worry about that. I also added more information gathered from a podcast. Added the celebration teaser 1stm to the BTS. Mor9347 ForPipadaLogo-UserImage (Talk) 04:11, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
      • While am aware the addition of quotation to the podcast title was suggested, it does conflict precedent (Hamato Xiono & others). If thats a precedent that should be changed open to hearing why, but past board discussions have landed on that it wasnt needed / or required in other established standards (like how BookCite and etc are derived from other real-world citation standards). In lack of Wook-overriding policy, we generally defer to how other professional publications cite their sources.—spookywillowwtalk 04:41, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Regarding the BTS quote caption, ending punctuation on quote captions is disallowed by policy (as per policy they shouldnt be full sentences)—spookywillowwtalk 04:43, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Is there a reason Secret Mission is not included from the {{1st}} template in the Appearances section? Generally, if the BTS claims that such and such are simultaneous appearances, then the 1st template is expected to match since the BTS is essentially supposed to prosify 1st-type templates.
  • The BTS claims the Visual Guide is a simultaneous "first appearance" of the rifle. However, reference books—or, anything in the Sources section, pretty much, is not generally considered an "appearance" (or if it is, then it should be in Appearances to begin with). The Visual Guide seemingly is also not the {{1stm}} here either, since its in the trailer. Unless there is other justification, there's limited reason it would be mentioned in the BTS.
  • I see that this rifle seems to be in two "Go Rogue" installments and one other LEGO thing. Per Raddus and Moroff (and others from other films than RO, of course), we do document non-canon material on subjects' pages, unless its just a 1:1 retelling of exact film actions. Is that the case with these?
  • Seems like you've got a bit of dupe linking.
  • Does Star Wars: Timelines (likely, I'd think) mention the Battle of Scarif as an event outright? If so, the date note needn't have the explanatory part and can be flatcited to Timelines itself, which dates the battle.
  • Its generally considered important to provide context for subjects such as planets—in this case, Scarif—for readers, such as calling it a planet or a world.
  • The link Blaster rifle is infobox-exclusive. With limited WP:LG/IU exceptions (basically just demonyms and a few other things), information in the infobox is generally expected to be documented in the body.
  • It is generally the standard to introduce individuals with longer names by their full name upon first mention, and then any shortened variants can be used after they are first introduced fully. In addition, usually, their context is provided on first mention, then all subsequent mentions don't need to re-mention the context. Pao's first mention in this article's body is the shortened name, and, his context is also not present upon first mention.
  • As evidenced by the majority of weapon GAs, its usually evident for weaponry in visual media whether a weapon can be wielded with one hand, two hands, or both. This reference on this article seems to imply it was fired at least once on-screen. It would follow that such information should be documented in some form, unless it truly is a murky or unclear shot, for both the body and the infobox (in which it is placed in the size field like this or this.)
  • In a similar vein, given he is in active combat with it, is it visible whether it is used in either melee or ranged combat? Per the same bo-rifle example, these are things that are generally included in the purpose field.
  • Given the article claims use on Scarif, per K-16 Bryar Pistol, the locations field generally documents locations where a weapon sees use and that should be added (unless there's a ton, then it's just "Throughout the galaxy," but that doesn't seem to be the case here.
  • In hidden maintenance category.
  • Missing source: Star Wars: Geektionary: The Galaxy from A - Z (to also be checked for info since Pao does have his own entry). Though not strictly related to this nom, the source is also missing from Sa'Kalla, and might be worth checking for {{Imo}}'s that I'm not picking up offhand.
  • It would be ideal to speak to Ayre, who has done nominations with the RO Celebration trailer, about the date for it. Some of his indexes place the trailer as part of a session on the 16th, which is more specific than including a three-day range, and also seems to line up with some cursory online research.—spookywillowwtalk 14:37, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Comments