- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a good article nomination that was successful. Please do not modify it.
Science Research Droid
- Nominated by: jSarek 08:51, May 31, 2012 (UTC)
- Nomination comments: A last-minute entry for Barn Burner #4. Also, a jSarekProject:Single Stage to Orbit entry. jSarek 08:51, May 31, 2012 (UTC)
(3 ACs/2 Users/5 Total)
Support
- Exiled Jedi
(Greetings) 17:19, June 3, 2012 (UTC) 
--Eyrezer 12:20, June 13, 2012 (UTC)
Cavalier One
(Squadron channel) 12:54, July 17, 2012 (UTC)- Winchester 327 Comlink » 17:19, July 28, 2012 (UTC)
- CC7567 (talk) 07:30, August 6, 2012 (UTC)
Object
Exiled Jedi
I think that perhaps an article should be created for the civilian model. We have an article for both the TIE scout and the civilian version of the vessel, the Lone Scout-A. The civilian variant seems different enough to have its own article, but still be mentioned briefly here.- Article created and linked. jSarek 10:03, June 3, 2012 (UTC)
- Other than that, good work. (By the way, the barn-burner has been extended through June.)--Exiled Jedi (Greetings) 13:34, May 31, 2012 (UTC)
Cav
Naming issue: the article is at Science Research Droid, while the infobox has S2R Science Research Droid. Which is correct? Both article name and infobox should the same. Also, is S2R the actual designation.- Cavalier One(Squadron channel) 12:54, June 18, 2012 (UTC)
- I'm away from my sources, so I will have to get back to you with the precise details, but the sources themselves were a bit vague. The first never used an alphanumeric designation; the second claimed that S2R was the term used by the military, and used it somewhat haphazardly. jSarek 18:37, June 24, 2012 (UTC)
- Well, I think some consistency is in order. I would have the infobox matching the article name, with the numerical designation just highlighted in the article as it currently is. - Cavalier One(Squadron channel) 21:59, July 2, 2012 (UTC)
- Well, I think some consistency is in order. I would have the infobox matching the article name, with the numerical designation just highlighted in the article as it currently is. - Cavalier One
- I'm away from my sources, so I will have to get back to you with the precise details, but the sources themselves were a bit vague. The first never used an alphanumeric designation; the second claimed that S2R was the term used by the military, and used it somewhat haphazardly. jSarek 18:37, June 24, 2012 (UTC)
Attack of the Clone
Extremely minor, but the intro formats it as "S2R Droid," whereas in the body it's decapitalized as "S2R droid." Please check for consistency here, as well as with the source material.- Please be careful of over-referencing. CC7567 (talk) 04:04, July 18, 2012 (UTC)
- Please be careful of under-referencing. I restored some because their absence made it unclear whether the related information was sourced or not. jSarek (talk) 08:48, July 28, 2012 (UTC)
- "and also for research into new armor and power-guidance systems for the Imperial Navy.[2] The droid, designated the "S2R droid" by the military,[2] first reached Imperial research centers in large numbers immediately after the Battle of Hoth in 3 ABY.[1] A large portion of this initial shipment wound up in the hands of the Alliance to Restore the Republic.[1]"" There are two [2] references and two [1] references in a row here, which is not necessary—not every sentence needs to be sourced, and that isn't the case for the rest of the paragraph anyway. If there's a [1] at the end of those two sentences, and likewise for the [2], there won't be any confusion. This is policy. CC7567 (talk) 18:57, July 28, 2012 (UTC)
- Because the latter references in each case source specific clauses within a sentence, it's not clear that they source more than just those clauses. Including the other references removes this ambiguity. Check the policy you just referenced: "However, if there is more than one source, then reference specific sentences as necessary. Finally, if that is not enough, tag individual words as necessary, as a last resort." jSarek (talk) 01:36, July 29, 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry to interject ---- "reference specific sentences as necessary" and "tag individual words as necessary" are specifically referring to instances where there are different references succeeding each other (eg, "John Smith was a Human[1] male[2] from Earth.[3]) There is never any reason to use the same reference twice in a row within one paragraph --- by default, a reference automatically sources everything within its paragraph that follows the preceding reference. "start out as general as you can with the reference tags. For example, if an entire paragraph is from one and only one source, tag the end of the paragraph." spells that out. Menkooroo (talk) 05:16, July 29, 2012 (UTC)
- Because the latter references in each case source specific clauses within a sentence, it's not clear that they source more than just those clauses. Including the other references removes this ambiguity. Check the policy you just referenced: "However, if there is more than one source, then reference specific sentences as necessary. Finally, if that is not enough, tag individual words as necessary, as a last resort." jSarek (talk) 01:36, July 29, 2012 (UTC)
- "and also for research into new armor and power-guidance systems for the Imperial Navy.[2] The droid, designated the "S2R droid" by the military,[2] first reached Imperial research centers in large numbers immediately after the Battle of Hoth in 3 ABY.[1] A large portion of this initial shipment wound up in the hands of the Alliance to Restore the Republic.[1]"" There are two [2] references and two [1] references in a row here, which is not necessary—not every sentence needs to be sourced, and that isn't the case for the rest of the paragraph anyway. If there's a [1] at the end of those two sentences, and likewise for the [2], there won't be any confusion. This is policy. CC7567 (talk) 18:57, July 28, 2012 (UTC)
- Please be careful of under-referencing. I restored some because their absence made it unclear whether the related information was sourced or not. jSarek (talk) 08:48, July 28, 2012 (UTC)
Comments
Approved as a Good article by AgriCorps 07:30, August 6, 2012 (UTC)
- I believe this droid gets a mention in C-3PO: Tales of the Golden Droid. After Mungo Baobab discovers Dha Werda Verda etched into the crystalline structure of the Roonstones he found, he sends Threepio and Artoo to the Baobab Archives to translate the rest of the engravings. The text then reads: "... the two droids arrived at their destination without an electronic confirmation of their orders. The researches already had plenty of Telbrintel science droids assigned to the task and didn't need a protocol unit, and they certainly didn't require the services of a mere astromech. Despite Threepio's indignant protests that they be allowed to contact Master Mungo at once, the two companions were sold to a trafficker in used technological goods." Since the droids are employed to do research, I think it's safe to assume that the text is referring to the Science Research Droid and not the civilian model. Thoughts? Menkooroo 05:02, June 26, 2012 (UTC)
- Hmm, iffy. The civilian model seems to do everything the original does except work on projects with military applications; so it would seem they would work just fine on the projects handled by the Archives. Still, this article covers both droids to some degree, so I'll include the information. jSarek (talk) 07:53, July 14, 2012 (UTC)