Wookieepedia:Good article nominations/Redeemer

< 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.

Redeemer

(3 ACs/2 Users/5 Total)

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

Support

  1. I personally can't find anything else after several reviews. Good work. --Vitus InfinitusTalk 20:55, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
  2. You're just nomming this because the Separatists blew it up :P OOM 224 ༼༽talk༼༽ 12:39, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
  3. ACvote Nice work with this. Always good to see some Venator love. Tommy-Macaroni 15:55, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
  4. ACvote Great work! Ayrehead02 (talk) 12:03, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
  5. ACvote Good work on the objections and sorry for the delay on my part. 1358 (Talk) 16:26, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Object

UberSoldat
  • For starters, the article should follow the precedent set by existing starship GAs. e.g. No manufacturer, reference note for length. UberSoldat93 ClanMudhornSignet-Redemption (talk) 17:51, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
  • It would be wise to investigate these sources for a potential mention of the ship (direct or indirect). UberSoldat93 ClanMudhornSignet-Redemption (talk) 07:48, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
    • Objection handled via Discord. UberSoldat93 ClanMudhornSignet-Redemption (talk) 16:42, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I don't see the purpose of explaining Ryloth's occupation in detail when it has no relation to the Redeemer. UberSoldat93 ClanMudhornSignet-Redemption (talk) 09:35, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
Editor
  • I feel like "and liberate Ryloth from the Separatist Alliance" is the wrong choice of words, due to Cham Syndulla's role in the Battle of Lessu. So I think something like "leading to the liberation...." would be better. You don't need to mention the Twi'lek resistance. I think change it to something that notes the liberation but doesn't attribute all of it to the Republic.--Editoronthewiki (talk) 20:26, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Macaroni
Vitus
  • I think the ship's hangars can be added, as well as the bridge, and the medium twin laser cannons on the hull. --Vitus InfinitusTalk 20:27, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
    • While I will add the fact that hangars and the laser cannons are equipped to the Redeemer, I don't really see point in noting that the ship was equipped with a command bridge as other Venator nominations do not include those in their description section. CIS roundel Erebus Chronus (talk) 20:40, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
OOM
  • I think the article would benefit from another ref note for the Open Circle Fleet.
    • Thinking this over, there is no reason to add a ref note for it being affiliated with the fleet, primarily because it's the same as clone trooper armor markings and because there's a precedent that contests this per Tranquility/Legends, an FA. CIS roundel Erebus Chronus (talk) 17:53, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
      • Oh yeah, it has that Open Circle Fleet emblem.
  • The sentence in the intro's second paragraph is quite long. It should be broken up.
    • Is that good?
  • "long" in the Description section violates WP:NPOV.
    • Removed.
  • Context for the Clone Wars in the History section cannot be sourced to "Storm over Ryloth"
    • Is it fine to source it to TSWB? The "three-year-long" part at least. CIS roundel Erebus Chronus (talk) 16:49, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
      • Actually, there's no need to say that the Clone Wars lasted three years or that the Ryloth blockade happened after the outbreak of the Clone Wars. The article only needs to mention that the blockade took place in 22 BBY, during the Clone Wars fought between the Republic and the Separatists.
        • Removed.
  • Since the article refers to "the three Star Destroyers" and "four additional Munificents" later on, the total number of Venators and Separatist capital ships originally at the blockade battle should be mentioned first in the "Strike on the blockade" subsection. The other two Venator's names should also be first mentioned there.
    • Added the names of the other two in the second History paragraph.
      • I think it's also worth mentioning the number of Separatist ships at that point of the battle.
  • It would be better if you could mix up the vocabulary for the words "heavy" and "damage"
    • Changed "heavy" to "extensive" before the subsection in History.
  • {{Mediacat}} needed OOM 224 ༼༽talk༼༽ 12:04, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
    • Added. Still rather confused on placement, though. CIS roundel Erebus Chronus (talk) 13:48, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
      • Per WP:LG#Mediacat, the template should be added under Appearances unless it interferes with the display of media titles, in which case it gets moved down until it no longer interferes with the presentation of media titles or reaches the Notes and references section. OOM 224 ༼༽talk༼༽ 18:07, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
  • The Description section can mention the Open Circle Fleet emblem on the ship.
  • Can you determine which SD in the first image of the article body is the Redeemer? If so, you should point it out in the caption. If not, the caption should be altered so as to maintain consistency of saying "the Defender and the Resolute" in that order.
  • I think Mar Tuuk's Lucrehulk is notable enough for an article.
  • {{Interlang}} should be in alphabetical order. OOM 224 ༼༽talk༼༽ 08:42, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Ecks
  • Please check the wording of references 3 and 4. Both contain a sentence that says "As this episode" but it's not at all clear which episode we're talking about. Please reword. 1358 (Talk) 16:05, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
  • You need to do some trimming of the excessive context in this article. You don't need to give context to the Clone Wars in the intro, nor do you need to explain the blockade's origin there. The first history paragraph doesn't mention the article subject at all (and it's also one giant run-on sentence). 1358 (Talk) 20:24, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
  • There are some parts of the article where you need to rewrite so that the Redeemer, the subject of this article, is also the subject of the sentence. "The Redeemer was dispatched by the Republic", not "The Republic dispatched the Redeemer". The intro is what caught my eye, but I'm sure there are other parts where you could make Redeemer the subject of the sentence. Of course, I'm not saying you need to systematically rewrite every sentence in that manner.
    • This should be fixed now, but just in case, are there any other places I could do the same?
      • The way you rewrote the intro sentence now makes it sound as if the Redeemer was not part of the fleet. 1358 (Talk) 08:55, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "Albeit" is a nice word, but it cannot be used in the manner you're using it in the Bts; it can only be used to introduce dependent clauses and noun/adjectival/adverbial phrases, like "The Redeemer first appeared, albeit briefly, in Jedi Crash." The wording you're looking for is "although only in the episode's opening newsreel." 1358 (Talk) 17:11, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "under the command of Jedi General Anakin Skywalker and his Padawan, Ahsoka Tano, to break through the blockade to allow a Republic invasion fleet to land on the planet." The latter part of this sentence reads a bit clunky since you have two consecutive clauses starting with "to". Please reword.
    • How does that look?
  • The first sentence of the second History paragraph is a bit of a run-on. It needs to be split up. 1358 (Talk) 16:23, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
  • "Served in" is used twice in close succession in the intro. Can we get some variation? (note: it is entirely possible I or someone else caused this in a copy-edit :P).
    • Someone else indeed caused it in a copy-edit. It was originally "The Redeemer and a fleet of two other Venators," but that was changed in a copy-edit by another AC. Would you like me to change it back?
  • It seems like Tano's rank of Jedi Commander is intro-exclusive at the moment.
    • Added to her first mention in History.
  • In the last History paragraph, you mention Kenobi and Windu as if you have provided context for them earlier. However, they're not mentioned anywhere else in the article. 1358 (Talk) 15:38, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
    • Fixed. Forgot that I removed their mention in the first History paragraph. Erebus Chronus (Talk) 16:04, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
Tommy
  • Looking good. Just a couple of things. First, do we know which of the Venators in the Strike on the blockade image is the Redeemer? It'd be nice to have a parenthesised left, center, or right label in the caption, if possible.
    • Funnily enough, OOM asked about this in his list of objections. However, as far as I'm aware, we cannot determine the Redeemer or Defender, but we can determine the Resolute because of the red conning towers. Since both the Redeemer and Defender seem to be on the left side of the Resolute, it's hard to determine which is which, even though the file name is "Defender Resolute Redeemer". Erebus Chronus (Talk) 13:46, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
  • It might be good to introduce the Republic squadron by name upon its first mention, since "Blue Squadron" is only mentioned once towards the end, which may be a little confusing.
    • I guess I accidentally removed that in one of my revisions. Added back in. Erebus Chronus (Talk) 13:58, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I think we might have to reconsider the notes used for the armament. First off, how do we know the TCW Venator isn't armed with light laser cannons? They could be small, or possibly be hidden by retractable panels or something. I'd recommend that note be taken out of the BTS, it isn't really relevant. And for the two types of turbolaser mentioned in the body, would be it possible to use a similar wording to Tyrant, like "Storm Over Ryloth depicts the Redeemer with what Complete Vehicles identifies as blah blah blah." I don't have that reference book so I'm not sure how much detail it provides, but that would be the ideal phrasing for something like this. Tommy-Macaroni 13:09, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
    • To tell you the truth, I actually spoke with Fred about this on Discord a few months ago and told him that it's hard to see if the TCW model has light laser cannons so we both decided to leave them out, which is what led to us also deciding to create a BTS note regarding the cannons. I can remove the note if you want me to, but I don't see it on any of the three Venators after watching snippets of the episode. And in regards to the weapons ref note, does that look better to you? Erebus Chronus (Talk) 13:46, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
      • I honestly think it's inconsequential to this article. If the book had explicitly said that all Venators have these canons, then it might be worth mentioning as some sort of error. But as it happens, it not having them isn't notable, so I would strongly recommend the removal of that paragraph. Nice work with the ref note, I've just tweaked it slightly to condense it. I like that you've included the number and position of each gun, though I would mention both of those facts in the body as well as just the number in the infobox. Tommy-Macaroni 15:02, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Amazingly
  • Just because the model for the Redeemer in The Clone Wars doesn't have light laser cannons, doesn't mean that they aren't on the ship at all. AmazinglyCool CIS roundel (talk) 15:19, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Ayrehead
  • Does Munificents not also need to be italicized? Ayrehead02 (talk) 11:23, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
    • I do not believe so. There's also precendent on this GA against it.
  • "In Tano's disobedience" would read better as "Due to Tano's disobedience". Ayrehead02 (talk) 11:23, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Comments