Wookieepedia:Good article nominations/Q-series droideka (second nomination)

< 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.

Q-series droideka

(0 AC/1 user/1 total)

Support

  1. Seems good to me, somebody else might spot something, but at the moment I can't see anything, nice article. - Kingpin13Cantina Battle Ground 18:31, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. From the homework strewn Aqua Unasi
    • After my quick read through, it's a very good article, and for me the only issue is with the sourcing for it. It's tricky with it being a very similar variant of the droideka. It appears the sources and appearances list contains onones that specifically state Q-series Droideka, which is good. My question is, is there still information about droidekas in general in the article?
      • For example, there's the information in the article taken from Suvivor's Quest'. I just read Survivor's Quest and is the Q-series specifically in there? I don't believe so, plus Survivor's Quest is not on the appearances list. I would go through and make sure you only talk about what is known about the Q-series, not talking about things known just about the droideka in general.
      • Also, some things about the characteristics of the Q-series. Is it anywhere stated that all of the physical aspects of it were the same as the droidekas, or something like only this one thing is different and the rest are the same as other droidekas? It may very well be, but if it's not said, characteristics based solely off the droideka may have to be removed. Example: the height 1.83 meters in the infobox might not be able to be sourced by something referring only to droidekas unless you have proof that their characteristics are the same.
    • A good article and nice work - once these things are sorted through I'll support, though I may come back after looking at it with more detail. :P Aqua Unasi 18:42, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I see what you're saying. This is tricky business indeed here. While I can't find a specific source that says the Q-series had everything the original had, a simple comparison of the pictures shows this. Since this model is a variant of the original droideka, I believe the same facts regarding the original model should be allowed in the article unless a specific source states otherwise (e.g. that the Q-series were not 1.83 meters). -- Joe Butler (Obi Maul12) (Chow) 22:40, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Hm, I see what you are saying too. Any other users' opinoins on this? Aqua Unasi 02:23, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
      • Well, I'd like other users' opinions on this, but since no one has replied, I think that we should stick with what we solidly know about the Q-series, and not assume from other things. Also, my objection about the Survivor's Quest info still stands. Aqua Unasi 22:56, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
  • The reason I'm reluctant to remove info about the droideka is because it'll make the article so much shorter, when it really doesn't need to be. -- Joe Butler (Obi Maul12) (Chow) 20:35, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Well if the info from Survivor's Quest isn't even about the Q-series droideka, then yes, it does need to be taken out. Aqua Unasi 20:43, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
      • It is about the Q-series droideka. The information talks about droidekas being sold to the corporate sector; and all droidekas produced after RotS were Q-series (Revenge of the Sith: Incredible Cross Sections).
        • And where, exactly, is the evidence that this particular droideka was constructed after RotS? -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 21:27, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Its first appearance was in RotS, which is one piece of evidence, and this was proven in RotS: ICS. -- Joe Butler (Obi Maul12) (Chow) 16:44, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
    • I mean the particular droids in Survivor's Quest. They could've been pre Q-series models. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 16:59, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
      • You're right; Survivor's Quest information removed. -- Joe Butler (Obi Maul12) (Chow) 10:52, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
          • Also, if you do have this evidence, it should probably be explained in a footnote so people can know that's how the information was gathered. Aqua Unasi 21:43, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
  1. Toprawa:
    • You still need to handle the objections you failed to address the first time around, found here. Toprawa and Ralltiir 21:26, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
      • Okay, I've just addressed your objection relating to the eras. I'll deal with Ackbar's objection later. -- Joe Butler (Obi Maul12) (Chow) 15:15, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
  2. Same as last time; everything I said still applies. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 21:27, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Removal vote (AgriCorps only)

  1. ACvote Oldest unresolved objection is a month old. Toprawa and Ralltiir 17:46, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
  2. ACvote It appears to have been abandoned. Aqua Unasi 21:16, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
  3. ACvote —Tommy9281 Red lightsaber (Peace is a lie) 10:58, 30 September 2008 (UTC)