- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a good article nomination that was successful. Please do not modify it.
Sanctuary III
- Nominated by: GethralkinHyperwave 01:46, May 16, 2011 (UTC)
- Nomination comments: Former CA nomination that now qualifies for GA nom.
(3 ACs/2 Users/5 Total)
Support
—Tommy 9281 Wednesday, June 1, 2011, 09:15 UTC- Kilson(Let's have a chat) 15:22, June 24, 2011 (UTC)
- Exiled Jedi
(Greetings) 21:43, July 1, 2011 (UTC) 
CC7567 (talk) 21:57, July 1, 2011 (UTC)- JangFett (Talk) 14:49, July 2, 2011 (UTC)
Object
Before I could give this article a review, there are some preliminaries that need to be taken care of. In the infobox, you're missing {{Ref}} tags, your intro needs to be proportional to the body. Have you checked every source or at least season one sources such as the visual guide, S1 guide, episode guide, dataclip on Cartoon Network's website, Insider? Even the smaller sources, such as the kid short stories. I think you could expand the Sanctuary III's role in SoM, even if it had a small appearance. Your current description of what it did in SoM also lacks context, ie the medical center. Per the SW Annual 2011, the events of this episode takes place in 21 BBY, so you could mention this somewhere in the article and source it to it. JangFett (Talk) 02:32, May 16, 2011 (UTC)- {{Ref}} tags have been added to the infobox. GethralkinHyperwave 05:15, May 16, 2011 (UTC)
- Intro filled in. Working on the references from the show—might even upload a "live" image. GethralkinHyperwave
- The WizKids review is canon, as it was done by a representative of the company. GethralkinHyperwave
- SW Annual 2011 included. GethralkinHyperwave 06:58, May 16, 2011 (UTC)
- Sourcing still remains. JangFett (Talk) 14:16, May 16, 2011 (UTC)
- I have included as many sources as I could find. The only view of the ship is when it is docking in a brief clip. No other mention of the ship is made other than it being identified and described by WizKids. GethralkinHyperwave 04:24, May 24, 2011 (UTC)
- I named some of the sources you could check above. If you don't have some or most, I would be able to check for you. Before you nominate an article, however, you should always check for sources. While the Sanctuary is not that old, various TCW sources could still show it. JangFett (Talk) 04:58, May 24, 2011 (UTC)
- If you know any other instance of where the Sanctuary III is mentioned or shown, by all means, please let me know. GethralkinHyperwave 19:53, May 24, 2011 (UTC)
- However, have you at least checked yourself? JangFett (Talk) 15:25, May 25, 2011 (UTC)
- I have checked all the source material that I have access to. GethralkinHyperwave 16:44, May 25, 2011 (UTC)
- You should always check for sources prior to nomination. Whether you have access to them or not, it's your responsibility to check for sources. I have listed a few sources that you could check and should have access to—the episode guide, or on cartoon network. JangFett (Talk) 20:34, June 3, 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, I have already checked those prior to nominating this article and neither the Cartoon Network nor the episode guide have any available info on the Sanctuary III. If you feel that I have missed something that you specifically know of, please tell me. If not, please consider this article fully sourced. GethralkinHyperwave 21:52, June 3, 2011 (UTC)
- However, you didn't check all relevant TCW sources, which might mention or show the Sanctuary III. Just because an article lists a certain amount of sources, doesn't mean it's complete. You shouldn't trust anything that's been leftover in articles; you should always double check every source available for the specific article's subject—in this case TCW—and check to see if the subject appears in it. If you look here, you will see the shuttle is indirectly mentioned in the episode's summary. Even though I did say I will check for any missing sources, it should not be the reviewer's responsibility to check for sources, but rather the nominator. This should have been taken care of prior to nominating. JangFett (Talk) 05:54, June 4, 2011 (UTC)
- Ah, I thought you were referring to the web comic for some reason, but I see that you did write "guide" and not "comic" (and coincidentally so did I, so my fingers were ahead of my brain, there). Anyway, I appreciate you directing my attention to—as you so pointed out—the indirect mention in the Episode Guide of the convoy that the frigate was in. Since there were no images in the EG, nor was the frigate mentioned by name, it was easy for me to miss the obscure allusion to the ship when I was looking through there for references. It is fixed now. GethralkinHyperwave 07:24, June 4, 2011 (UTC)
- Until I am able to check for other sources, I'll keep this objection up. I hope you do understand to check for sources yourself in the future, though. Also, I was going to mention this, are you sure this frigate isn't pictured in any CW Tactic trading cards that you're aware of? We do have a sourcing template for those cards.
- Well, I checked all the relevant material I could—I do my own research, but I do ask that if anyone knows of anything I may have missed, please point it out. So, aside from the indirect mention I overlooked, the information I gathered was comprehensive. However, missing that one minor indirect reference, I can understand your wanting to do your own research. As for being depicted on Tactics cards, it is not imaged on any of them. I know this because I have all of the images. And if you are referring to the {{SWPM}} template, that is the one that I help to keep updated. GethralkinHyperwave 06:32, June 9, 2011 (UTC)
- No new material concerning Sanctuary III has presented itself as of yet that I know of. If you are unable to produce any other references beyond what I have been able to find, can you please strike your comments? It has been almost two weeks since you made your last objection on this matter. GethralkinHyperwave 14:38, June 20, 2011 (UTC)
- Are you sure you checked all sources? JangFett (Talk) 18:13, June 24, 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, I am sure. GethralkinHyperwave 08:19, June 25, 2011 (UTC)
I really do not see why you are asking this question again unless it is only to stall the success of this article's GA nomination. I have already posted on the 20th that there is no other information to be found concerning the ship. Can you please strike your comments if you have nothing further to add that hasn't already been addressed? GethralkinHyperwave 19:52, June 25, 2011 (UTC)- Thanks, Jang. GethralkinHyperwave 00:15, June 27, 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, I am sure. GethralkinHyperwave 08:19, June 25, 2011 (UTC)
- Are you sure you checked all sources? JangFett (Talk) 18:13, June 24, 2011 (UTC)
- No new material concerning Sanctuary III has presented itself as of yet that I know of. If you are unable to produce any other references beyond what I have been able to find, can you please strike your comments? It has been almost two weeks since you made your last objection on this matter. GethralkinHyperwave 14:38, June 20, 2011 (UTC)
- Well, I checked all the relevant material I could—I do my own research, but I do ask that if anyone knows of anything I may have missed, please point it out. So, aside from the indirect mention I overlooked, the information I gathered was comprehensive. However, missing that one minor indirect reference, I can understand your wanting to do your own research. As for being depicted on Tactics cards, it is not imaged on any of them. I know this because I have all of the images. And if you are referring to the {{SWPM}} template, that is the one that I help to keep updated. GethralkinHyperwave 06:32, June 9, 2011 (UTC)
- Until I am able to check for other sources, I'll keep this objection up. I hope you do understand to check for sources yourself in the future, though. Also, I was going to mention this, are you sure this frigate isn't pictured in any CW Tactic trading cards that you're aware of? We do have a sourcing template for those cards.
- Ah, I thought you were referring to the web comic for some reason, but I see that you did write "guide" and not "comic" (and coincidentally so did I, so my fingers were ahead of my brain, there). Anyway, I appreciate you directing my attention to—as you so pointed out—the indirect mention in the Episode Guide of the convoy that the frigate was in. Since there were no images in the EG, nor was the frigate mentioned by name, it was easy for me to miss the obscure allusion to the ship when I was looking through there for references. It is fixed now. GethralkinHyperwave 07:24, June 4, 2011 (UTC)
- However, you didn't check all relevant TCW sources, which might mention or show the Sanctuary III. Just because an article lists a certain amount of sources, doesn't mean it's complete. You shouldn't trust anything that's been leftover in articles; you should always double check every source available for the specific article's subject—in this case TCW—and check to see if the subject appears in it. If you look here, you will see the shuttle is indirectly mentioned in the episode's summary. Even though I did say I will check for any missing sources, it should not be the reviewer's responsibility to check for sources, but rather the nominator. This should have been taken care of prior to nominating. JangFett (Talk) 05:54, June 4, 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, I have already checked those prior to nominating this article and neither the Cartoon Network nor the episode guide have any available info on the Sanctuary III. If you feel that I have missed something that you specifically know of, please tell me. If not, please consider this article fully sourced. GethralkinHyperwave 21:52, June 3, 2011 (UTC)
- You should always check for sources prior to nomination. Whether you have access to them or not, it's your responsibility to check for sources. I have listed a few sources that you could check and should have access to—the episode guide, or on cartoon network. JangFett (Talk) 20:34, June 3, 2011 (UTC)
- I have checked all the source material that I have access to. GethralkinHyperwave 16:44, May 25, 2011 (UTC)
- However, have you at least checked yourself? JangFett (Talk) 15:25, May 25, 2011 (UTC)
- If you know any other instance of where the Sanctuary III is mentioned or shown, by all means, please let me know. GethralkinHyperwave 19:53, May 24, 2011 (UTC)
- I named some of the sources you could check above. If you don't have some or most, I would be able to check for you. Before you nominate an article, however, you should always check for sources. While the Sanctuary is not that old, various TCW sources could still show it. JangFett (Talk) 04:58, May 24, 2011 (UTC)
- I have included as many sources as I could find. The only view of the ship is when it is docking in a brief clip. No other mention of the ship is made other than it being identified and described by WizKids. GethralkinHyperwave 04:24, May 24, 2011 (UTC)
- Sourcing still remains. JangFett (Talk) 14:16, May 16, 2011 (UTC)
- SW Annual 2011 included. GethralkinHyperwave 06:58, May 16, 2011 (UTC)
- The WizKids review is canon, as it was done by a representative of the company. GethralkinHyperwave
- Intro filled in. Working on the references from the show—might even upload a "live" image. GethralkinHyperwave
- {{Ref}} tags have been added to the infobox. GethralkinHyperwave 05:15, May 16, 2011 (UTC)
I'll begin my first review, Context on Kaliida Shoals Medical Center- Done. GethralkinHyperwave 07:17, June 9, 2011 (UTC)
"unlike the symmetrically striped wings of the other Pelta-class frigates in its convoy." What convoy?- Fixed. GethralkinHyperwave 07:17, June 9, 2011 (UTC)
In the history section, begin the section with what the Sanctuary is and where is came from. You just start with "During the Clone Wars," which doesn't say anything about this ship.- Fixed. Thanks for noticing that, I missed it. GethralkinHyperwave 07:17, June 9, 2011 (UTC)
- "protection as well as medical attention was required for the wounded as they healed. The Sanctuary III was well-suited to the task as it was not only well armored, but could also withstand a sudden ambush." Not quite sure why this belongs in the history section.
- Fixed. GethralkinHyperwave 08:19, June 12, 2011 (UTC)
- "protection as well as medical attention was required for the wounded as they healed. The Sanctuary III was well-suited to the task as it was not only well armored, but could also withstand a sudden ambush." Not quite sure why this belongs in the history section.
- Fixed. Thanks for noticing that, I missed it. GethralkinHyperwave 07:17, June 9, 2011 (UTC)
Like in the intro, context on the Med center- Fixed. GethralkinHyperwave 07:17, June 9, 2011 (UTC)
Also you need to expand more on the Malevolence's attack on the convoys and the med center. All this is present in the episode and the dialogue is clear that Grievous wants the convoy of frigates, including the Sanctuary III, destroyed.- Actually, the Malevolence did not attack the convoy from Naboo. Before the Malevolence began its navigation around the nebula to the med center, he attacked a group of ships that included Pelta's. This was unrelated to the Naboo convoy which was organized after the Malevolence was detected moving toward the med center. The Mal also did not even get close enough to the med center to land a shot. Additionally, the last ships leaving the center were not the Sanctuary III (the markings were different). So no attack occurred on either the convoy or the facility during the time the Sanctuary III was in-system. GethralkinHyperwave 07:17, June 9, 2011 (UTC)
- You misunderstood a bit, but after rewatching the episode again, it seems it doesn't require an expansion since it's a very minor detail in the episode.
- Oh. Well, okay. Anything else I might have missed, though, please let me know. GethralkinHyperwave 00:25, June 10, 2011 (UTC)
- You misunderstood a bit, but after rewatching the episode again, it seems it doesn't require an expansion since it's a very minor detail in the episode.
- Actually, the Malevolence did not attack the convoy from Naboo. Before the Malevolence began its navigation around the nebula to the med center, he attacked a group of ships that included Pelta's. This was unrelated to the Naboo convoy which was organized after the Malevolence was detected moving toward the med center. The Mal also did not even get close enough to the med center to land a shot. Additionally, the last ships leaving the center were not the Sanctuary III (the markings were different). So no attack occurred on either the convoy or the facility during the time the Sanctuary III was in-system. GethralkinHyperwave 07:17, June 9, 2011 (UTC)
Air date is needed for Shadow of Malevolence in the bts. JangFett (Talk) 03:20, June 8, 2011 (UTC)- Done. GethralkinHyperwave 07:17, June 9, 2011 (UTC)
Ecks Dee
Reference two needs to be pipelinked. You can check other status articles for examples of what I mean.Reference 2 is from the film, not an episode.GethralkinHyperwave 17:43, May 19, 2011 (UTC)- I noticed the other references that weren't pipelinked and fixed them. GethralkinHyperwave 18:25, May 19, 2011 (UTC)
- Nor did I ask you to format it like an episode. I asked you to format it properly—the parenthesis should not be there and film should be unitalicized. 1358 (Talk) 17:54, May 19, 2011 (UTC)
- Pipelinked = parenthesis? I guess I didn't understand your first comment. I also didn't know a film's name should go un-italicized. Moot point, now, though. A better reference of size was found in another source that I have included. GethralkinHyperwave 01:00, May 20, 2011 (UTC)
- This is what I was referring to, but I guess this'll do. 1358 (Talk) 19:09, May 23, 2011 (UTC)
- I see what you mean. GethralkinHyperwave 20:30, May 23, 2011 (UTC)
- This is what I was referring to, but I guess this'll do. 1358 (Talk) 19:09, May 23, 2011 (UTC)
- Pipelinked = parenthesis? I guess I didn't understand your first comment. I also didn't know a film's name should go un-italicized. Moot point, now, though. A better reference of size was found in another source that I have included. GethralkinHyperwave 01:00, May 20, 2011 (UTC)
Its hyperspace capability needs to be mentioned in the article proper.- Being that the ship has been specifically modified, it can not be verified what the actual hyperspace rating is based on the stock value. GethralkinHyperwave 17:43, May 19, 2011 (UTC)
- I did not ask you to include the rating, but the capability itself—a fact currently present in the infobox. 1358 (Talk) 17:54, May 19, 2011 (UTC)
- Done. I went ahead and used the stock Pelta values, too. I figure that the attributes should be the same except where the modifications that were mentioned have been made. GethralkinHyperwave 01:00, May 20, 2011 (UTC)
- No, that's not what I wanted at all. If you read my initial objection, I told you to mention "the ship is hyperspace capable" in the article itself, not only in the infobox. You shouldn't assume the stock values apply for each ship. 1358 (Talk) 19:09, May 23, 2011 (UTC)
- Okay, no stock values and hyperdrive equipped. GethralkinHyperwave 20:30, May 23, 2011 (UTC)
- How are these two facts related at all? "Although maneuverability with its sublight drive was poor [...] the hospital ship was equipped with a hyperdrive that propelled it through hyperspace" Please make a better connection. 1358 (Talk) 20:56, June 1, 2011 (UTC)
- Reworded. See how that works. GethralkinHyperwave 07:35, June 4, 2011 (UTC)
- How are these two facts related at all? "Although maneuverability with its sublight drive was poor [...] the hospital ship was equipped with a hyperdrive that propelled it through hyperspace" Please make a better connection. 1358 (Talk) 20:56, June 1, 2011 (UTC)
- Okay, no stock values and hyperdrive equipped. GethralkinHyperwave 20:30, May 23, 2011 (UTC)
- No, that's not what I wanted at all. If you read my initial objection, I told you to mention "the ship is hyperspace capable" in the article itself, not only in the infobox. You shouldn't assume the stock values apply for each ship. 1358 (Talk) 19:09, May 23, 2011 (UTC)
- Done. I went ahead and used the stock Pelta values, too. I figure that the attributes should be the same except where the modifications that were mentioned have been made. GethralkinHyperwave 01:00, May 20, 2011 (UTC)
- I did not ask you to include the rating, but the capability itself—a fact currently present in the infobox. 1358 (Talk) 17:54, May 19, 2011 (UTC)
- Being that the ship has been specifically modified, it can not be verified what the actual hyperspace rating is based on the stock value. GethralkinHyperwave 17:43, May 19, 2011 (UTC)
There are some parameters in the infobox that can be used — "First sighted" or whatever it's called, for example.1358 (Talk) 05:16, May 19, 2011 (UTC)- The only instance of this in the Individual Ship infobox is Firstuse. The use in SoM is not necessarily the first. GethralkinHyperwave 17:43, May 19, 2011 (UTC)
- The parameter description in {{Individual ship}} says this: "firstsight – If we don't know the launch date, list the date it was first seen." 1358 (Talk) 17:54, May 19, 2011 (UTC)
- Okay, I see what the problem is. The Ind. Ship that was initially used does not even have Firstsight, so I think that the template has been redone since. I have updated the article with the current template format with the date added. GethralkinHyperwave 23:46, May 19, 2011 (UTC)
- The parameter description in {{Individual ship}} says this: "firstsight – If we don't know the launch date, list the date it was first seen." 1358 (Talk) 17:54, May 19, 2011 (UTC)
- The only instance of this in the Individual Ship infobox is Firstuse. The use in SoM is not necessarily the first. GethralkinHyperwave 17:43, May 19, 2011 (UTC)
The subject doesn't need to be bolded outside the intro.1358 (Talk) 19:09, May 23, 2011 (UTC)- Oops. Done. GethralkinHyperwave 20:30, May 23, 2011 (UTC)
"Its role as an armed and armored hospital ship was instrumental in the effort to curb losses during the Clone Wars." This sentence doesn't seem to fit—it would be good if we knew it participated in several battles wherein it evacuated lots of clones. But we only know it saved clones during one battle. Maybe you could add something about what it did instead. Maybe you could explain more about this Malevolence.- The statement is from original info WizKids' received from Lucas on the ship. No further indication was given as to what battles were being referred to. Better context on Malevolence indicating it as the Separatist flagship, however, has been added.GethralkinHyperwave 02:16, June 16, 2011 (UTC)
"During the Clone Wars, protection as well as medical attention was required for the wounded as they healed. The Sanctuary III was well-suited to the task as it was not only well armored, but could also withstand a sudden ambush."- Again, based on a statement from original info WizKids' received from Lucas on the ship. GethralkinHyperwave 02:16, June 16, 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry for not elaborating on this; I apparently had a brain freeze. :P
I had in mind a mention of who the wounded were, maybe? 1358 (Talk) 19:18, June 19, 2011 (UTC)- Oh, well in that case, mostly clones. Fixed. GethralkinHyperwave 20:49, June 19, 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry for not elaborating on this; I apparently had a brain freeze. :P
- Again, based on a statement from original info WizKids' received from Lucas on the ship. GethralkinHyperwave 02:16, June 16, 2011 (UTC)
Reference 4 seems to lead to "page not found". The link in the sources seems fine, though.- WizKids former parent site has apparently has been restructured since the sale of the company to NECA, and Star Wars brand material is no longer available on the NECA-run site. I have linked the archived copy of the article. GethralkinHyperwave 02:16, June 16, 2011 (UTC)
History needs to be expanded. Give some context as to why evacuation was needed, what the Malevolence was and stuff like that. A general beef-up.- How's that? GethralkinHyperwave 02:16, June 16, 2011 (UTC)
I don't really know about this, but is that really the only applicable category? Maybe you could search around a bit. I'm thinking of something like a category for hospital ships or something.1358 (Talk) 20:48, June 15, 2011 (UTC)- I have the ship's role already listed as a hospital ship. Can you explain you objection further? GethralkinHyperwave 02:16, June 16, 2011 (UTC)
- I was referring to the categories, at the bottom of the page. The page is currently in "Galactic Republic starships" only, but I'm sure there could be something else. 1358 (Talk) 19:18, June 19, 2011 (UTC)
- Ah, I see. Done. GethralkinHyperwave 20:49, June 19, 2011 (UTC)
- I was referring to the categories, at the bottom of the page. The page is currently in "Galactic Republic starships" only, but I'm sure there could be something else. 1358 (Talk) 19:18, June 19, 2011 (UTC)
- I have the ship's role already listed as a hospital ship. Can you explain you objection further? GethralkinHyperwave 02:16, June 16, 2011 (UTC)
Twin
"Though not able to inflict a great amount of damage, Sanctuary III was capable of delivering more than a comparable ship its size with its turbolaser batteries." I'm having difficulty understanding what you are trying to say here.- That's all.—Tommy 9281 Tuesday, May 31, 2011, 22:27 UTC
- How's that? GethralkinHyperwave 04:48, June 1, 2011 (UTC)
Kilson
You have some Infobox-exclusive information. You need to mention the ship's length, that it was made by Kuat Drive Yards, and that it's not available for purchase in the Characteristics.- Done. GethralkinHyperwave 15:15, June 24, 2011 (UTC)
The entire History section is one big sentence. Try splitting it up to make it read better.- Fixed. GethralkinHyperwave 15:15, June 24, 2011 (UTC)
- Otherwise, looks good. Kilson(Let's have a chat) 12:12, June 23, 2011 (UTC)
Attack of the Clone
How exactly was the "c. 408 meters" length derived? I'm not seeing any actual meter markings, so please provide more sources to back up your claim. Also, even if this approximation is mostly accurate for "normal" Peltas, how do we know that this can apply to the Sanctuary III? Commonly, only statistics explicitly related to a specific ship, not the entire class of ships, are used. Please clarify.- The image provided for Ghosts of Mortis provided a scaled drawing that gives comparative size value to a standard vehicle (LAAT) with an established length. However, your point about individual specific ship statistics is taken. Removed. GethralkinHyperwave 19:03, July 1, 2011 (UTC)
Please use {{WebCite}} to format ref 4.- Done. GethralkinHyperwave 19:03, July 1, 2011 (UTC)
I hate to be a stickler about this, but how exactly do we know that it appeared in "Shadow of Malevolence"? Even if a ship that looks like it appears in the episode, that doesn't necessarily mean that it's the ship. Is there any better sourcing that can be applied that directly identifies the ship in the episode?- The miniatures of the SWPM game featured previews of the ships that appeared in the episodes that they preceded. The TCW SoM episode is the only ship in that season to appear bearing the markings of the miniature. GethralkinHyperwave 19:03, July 1, 2011 (UTC)
Even though someone mentioned something about this before, I would suggest adding something small to the end of the History section to explain what happened to the station. The fact that it was saved (instead of being imminently destroyed by the Malevolence) by Skywalker and Shadow Squadron is at least worth mentioning.CC7567 (talk) 20:42, June 27, 2011 (UTC)- Okay, added. The ship itself was never in any danger of being destroyed by Malevolence. It was not in the system when Malevolence arrived. However, I have added that information to the History section. GethralkinHyperwave 19:03, July 1, 2011 (UTC)
Comments
Approved as a Good article by AgriCorps 16:08, July 2, 2011 (UTC)
- Please archive the CA nomination before you take it to GAN next time. Perhaps the CAN page needs a note on this... NaruHina Talk 02:43, May 16, 2011 (UTC)
I have already made the proper notation required of me on the CAN page as is stipulated by the CAnom Instructions. Please check the instructions in the section marked CAN status review and you will find that I have followed them to the letter. The CAN entry must stay pending the outcome of the GAN.GethralkinHyperwave 04:32, May 16, 2011 (UTC)Can a motion to strike the comments of JangFett's objections be made. They were made over a month ago and have all been answered by the the first week of this month. He has not responded to my comments either here or on his talk page concerning the corrections made to the article and has not posted anything new here in the last two-and-a-half weeks. GethralkinHyperwave 15:26, June 24, 2011 (UTC)JangFett has now posted again, but not to ask anything new. He is repeating a question that I have already answered. Two AGs have already signed off on this GAN. How do we make some progress here? GethralkinHyperwave 20:06, June 25, 2011 (UTC)
