Wookieepedia:Good article nominations/R4-K5 (second nomination)

< 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.

R4-K5

  • Nominated by: OtterSurf (talk) 17:40, March 15, 2020 (UTC)
  • Nomination comments: Missed Ayrehead's last objection.

(3 ACs/2 Users/5 Total)

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

Support

  1. Carrying over my vote from previous review. QuiGonJinn Senate seal(Talk) 11:00, May 7, 2020 (UTC)
  2. UberSoldat93 ClanMudhornSignet-Redemption (talk) 18:33, May 16, 2020 (UTC)
  3. ACvote 1358 (Talk) 18:34, May 19, 2020 (UTC)
  4. ACvote MasterCommerce GuildFredcerique 04:39, May 21, 2020 (UTC)
  5. ACvote Tommy-Macaroni 11:32, May 22, 2020 (UTC)

Object

Ecks Dee
  • I don't see how you can source R4's affiliation to the Order of the Sith Lords to the Databank entry. It says no such thing—in fact, it says the droid is affiliated with the Empire.
  • Please format the pack names in the HasbroCite exactly as rebelscum does, including capitalization. 1358 (Talk) 09:49, April 13, 2020 (UTC)
  • I don't think the first intro sentence does a good job at introducting the subject right now. R4 is notable for his service under Vader, not his ownership by an unnamed Jedi. If I may recommend a rough rewording: "R4 was an astromech droid that accompanied Vader, formerly Skywalker, on early missions for the Empire. Once owned by a Jedi, R4 was chosen for its dark hue by Vader to replace his former astromech R2."
  • The mention of the hemispherical dome belongs in the Characteristics rather than the Biography.
  • I think you should mention in the first paragraph of the bio that R4 succeeded R2-D2 as Vader's astromech droid.
  • Palpatine deserves at least one word of context upon his mention in the bio.
  • "Vader, on orders from Palpatine to launch a direct airborne attack after the failure of an initial ground assault, led the squadron in an attack on a shielded city" He was ordered to launch an attack, so he led an attack. Can we get some variation here?
  • Considering the battle on Ostor involves rogue clone troopers fighting against the Empire, it's not entirely clear on whose side CT-5539 is. 1358 (Talk) 17:12, May 13, 2020 (UTC)
  • "the droid occupied the astromech socket of the Dark Lord's interceptor during an attack on fugitive Jedi Knights Roan Shryne and Olee Starstone" No link to an article on the attack?
    • There isn't one. OtterSurf (talk) 20:15, May 18, 2020 (UTC)
      • Should one be created, then? It seems like this attack is notable enough to warrant an article. 1358 (Talk) 20:17, May 18, 2020 (UTC)
        • I'm going to go ahead and say no, since the long and short of it is summed up in this article. OtterSurf (talk) 20:46, May 18, 2020 (UTC)
          • How is that relevant? Articles are created based on their notability (and this one definitely seems notable enough) and available information; whether it's well-covered in this or any other article is irrelevant. 1358 (Talk) 20:49, May 18, 2020 (UTC)
            • Okay, I'll give it a go. OtterSurf (talk) 20:51, May 18, 2020 (UTC)
            • Done. I'll beef it up over time. OtterSurf (talk) 12:28, May 19, 2020 (UTC)
  • In the Bts, you do a good job explaining the inconsistencies, but I believe you should have a sentence explaining which depiction the article treats as the correct one. 1358 (Talk) 19:20, May 18, 2020 (UTC)
Fred strikes back
  • "Over two weeks after the end of the Clone Wars, the droid occupied the astromech socket of the Dark Lord's interceptor during an attack on the fugitive Jedi Knights Roan Shryne and Olee Starstone near the former Separatist-aligned Outer Rim world of Murkhana shortly after the battle there, which had ended in the last hours of the war." This is a run-on sentence.
  • Is "Phase Two" actually a proper noun? Our article on Shrouded Offensive doesn't consider it as such. Please go off what the source says, though, and not what our article uses. I'm just wanting to know which one needs to be changed. Same for "Phase One."
  • "The droid's plating was dark gray with black tool coverings, and its sensor was black, with a red status indicator on its dome." The way this is worded currently makes it seem like the black sensor has a dome on it that also has a red status indicator on it. Please reword.
  • A bit of a semi-colon overuse in the article. At least one of the instances in the Bts could be restructured. MasterCommerce GuildFredcerique 04:37, May 8, 2020 (UTC)
Tommy
  • In Sources, you have The Saga Collection first, then the Transformers one, then the 30th Anniversary Collection. However, while the website links of the first and last of these cite a release date of 2006, the middle one is said to have released in December 2006. From the LG: "If only an item's publication month and/or year are known, place that item at the end of the month or year. Example: If Source A was published on March 15, 2005 and Source B's publication date is only known as March 2005, list Source A first." Therefore, these sources need to be reordered, unless you can get more specific dates from elsewhere.
  • "The R4-K5 designation was provided by Hasbro in 2006;[1] the droid was produced both on its own[3] and in a model of Vader's interceptor.[8]" - I've reworded this for clarity, but this makes it sound like the droid was identified in the Interceptor too. If this is the case, more uses of {{1stID}} should be used in the Sources if we still don't know which was released first. If not, then this needs to be reworded so it's clear which source identified the droid. Tommy-Macaroni 12:47, May 21, 2020 (UTC)
    • To answer both, there are conflicting dates from several sources which means I've had to make as much sense of it all as is possible, which I have done. OtterSurf (talk) 12:59, May 21, 2020 (UTC)
    • I've also reordered the sources per the above objection, and no, R4-K5 is not named in the starfighter description. OtterSurf (talk) 13:03, May 21, 2020 (UTC)
      • "If not, then this needs to be reworded so it's clear which source identified the droid." Tommy-Macaroni 13:26, May 21, 2020 (UTC)
        • R4-K5 was named in the action figure set as described. OtterSurf (talk) 13:36, May 21, 2020 (UTC)
          • "R4-K5 is not named in the starfighter description" - then, per my above objection, the BTS needs to be reworded so it no longer implies the starfighter provides the name. Also, I want you to make it clear the figure is the 1stID in the BTS. Tommy-Macaroni 13:56, May 21, 2020 (UTC)
            • Done. OtterSurf (talk) 14:01, May 21, 2020 (UTC)
              • Is it really relevant to mention the interceptor at all? It isn't a 1stID or anything notable like that. Also, do we still need the DB ref tag if it can all be sourced to the HC ref? Tommy-Macaroni 14:12, May 21, 2020 (UTC)
                • R4-K5's manufacturer can only be sourced to DB. Also the height, definitive plating colour, and the fact that Vader regarded it as nothing more than hardware. OtterSurf (talk) 15:30, May 21, 2020 (UTC)
                  • I don't mean altogether, just from that BTS sentence. Tommy-Macaroni 15:34, May 21, 2020 (UTC)
                    • Oh, I get you. Done and done. OtterSurf (talk) 15:36, May 21, 2020 (UTC)
                      • In response to your now deleted comment, the BTS does not need to mention every single source the subject has appeared in. That's why we have the sources and appearances lists. The interceptor pack does not contain any notable info like 1st or 1stID, therefore has nothing to add to the BTS discussion of the subject. Tommy-Macaroni 10:58, May 22, 2020 (UTC)

Comments

Approved as a Good article by AgriCorps 11:32, May 22, 2020 (UTC)