Wookieepedia:Good article nominations/Scythe-class main battle cruiser

< 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.

Scythe-class main battle cruiser

  • Nominated by:AdmiralNick22 17:49, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Nomination comments:In light of new information from the Legacy Era Campaign Guide, there was finally enough specific information on the Scythe for me to attempt a GA nom.

(3 ACs/2 Users/5 Total)

Support

  1. Good job! SoresuMakashi(Everything I tell you is the truth) 07:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
  2. ACvote Cavalier OneFarStar(Squadron channel) 14:02, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
  3. Excellent work. CC7567 20px-Rex.png (talk) 17:54, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
  4. ACvote Nice job :-). Grunny (Talk) 14:08, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
  5. ACvote Grand Moff Tranner Imperial Department of Military Research (Comlink) 14:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Object

  1. Soresu
    • Some parts of the infobox are unsourced.
    • You may want to split the Characteristics section into a Role section as well to conform with the new Layout Guide for ships.
      • Done. I have added a "role" section, as well as rearranged the characteristics section. AdmiralNick22 19:40, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
    • You seem to be sourcing every sentence. This is not what's meant to happen. All you need to do is reference every time you use start using info from a new source and also at the ned of every paragraph. Get rid of any redundancies.
      • To be honest, I was heavy on the sourcing due to my experience in turning the Gar Stazi article into FA status. I can remove some, but I figured it is good to be thorough. However, if some appear to be too redundant, please point out the specifics or feel free to edit them out.AdmiralNick22 19:40, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Make sure you are writing in past tense. There are a number of cases where present tense is being used.
      • Done. I gave it another read through, but if you notice any other past tense please feel free to edit them out.AdmiralNick22 19:40, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Underlinking. Make sure you link to everything once in the intro and once in the body.
      • I am not sure if I understand the request. Looking at the intro and main body, I really don't seen many things that I did not link to the main article.AdmiralNick22 19:40, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
    • In addition, the forward blade gave the warship a similar appearance to the ancient Republic Hammerhead-class cruiser. In addition to containing much of the ship's weapons, the blade is taken up by several hangar bays. Try to avoid using 'In addition' twicein such a short space.
    • Scythe battle cruisers were part of the combined Alliance fleet that was defeated by Grand Admiral Morlish Veed during the Battle of Caamas. Who was the Alliance fleet fighting? Give some context on the war.
      • Done. I added a bit about the significance of the battle.AdmiralNick22 19:48, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
        • You've got the context, which is good. Caamas proved to be a major Imperial victory and the death knell for the Galactic Alliance government, as Grand Admiral Morlish Veed managed to force the majority of the Alliance fleet to surrender. However, many of these vessels were deployed as part of the Galactic Alliance Core Fleet under Admiral Gar Stazi. This proved fortunate, as the majority of the Core Fleet escaped while engaged in a fighting withdrawal from Caamas. This preserved a sizable portion of the Alliance battle fleet. In this case 'those vessels' sounds like it is referring to the ships that surrendered. Also double word usage with majority. Finally, you say a majority of the fleet surrendered, but they were able to keep a sizable portion. That sounds a little self-contradictory. SoresuMakashi(Everything I tell you is a lie) 07:58, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
          • Fixed. I tweaked the section a bit, adding some new info and removing any redundancies. AdmiralNick22 13:23, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
    • when the crippled warship was sacrificed to cripple the Again, avoid double word usage.
    • Make sure that you give an article a good read-through to pick up any spelling errors before you nominate. I had to perform quite a hefty copy-edit. SoresuMakashi(Everything I tell you is a lie) 07:48, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
      • I appreciate your feedback and the edits that you have made. It is always nice to have an extra set of eyes looking over an article. I haven't really by that active on the Wook since last year when I got the Stazi article to FA (and that too took alot of helpful comments/feedback!). AdmiralNick22 19:48, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
  2. Cav's Scything look ... :P
    • I feel the intro could be expanded upon, mentioning a little on the design characteristics.
      • Do you have a specific idea in mind? I tried to come up with a bit about the design in the entry and I couldn't make it work. AdmiralNick22 16:31, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
        • Some information on the design, how it is an advancement of the MC design and specifically targeting the blade structure on the fore. Don't be afraid to repeat information that is present later in the bio. I know how I would write it; if you need a hand, drop me a note on my talk page and we'll discuss it :) - Cavalier OneFarStar(Squadron channel) 13:34, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
          • I added a bit about the design, as well as how it was a radical departure from previous Mon Cal designs. AdmiralNick22 15:50, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
    • The "Known Ships" section needs to be expanded on; prose sections are preferred to lists (even with one item on it). This would include a brief description of the Indomitable and its history. - Cavalier OneFarStar(Squadron channel) 15:28, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
      • I added a little blurb next to the Indomitable under the Known Ships. I appreciate yoru feedback. Please feel free to make any little tweaks that you feel improve the article. :-) AdmiralNick22 16:31, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
        • I rewrote the section on the Indomitable into a more prose-y form with a little more description. See what you think. - Cavalier OneFarStar(Squadron channel) 13:34, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
          • FYI, I eliminated the section. As Tope said, it goes against the layout guide, and although I feel that a small section on the Indomitable was fine, it is not to be. Because of this, eliminating the entire section is best since lists (especially with one item) don't really work. - Cavalier OneFarStar(Squadron channel) 13:52, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
          • Looks good. Thanks! AdmiralNick22 15:50, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
  3. Images aren't properly categorized. A category for the images of this class should be created. Mauser 11:19, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Done. Category added. AdmiralNick22 02:27, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Hmm, I am not sure how to do that. Can you explain how I create an image category? AdmiralNick22 01:18, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
      • All you have to do is create a category (Category:Images of Scythe-class battle cruisers or something, for instance), write a short description for it, and place it in the category of whatever main images category it should belong to, to make it a sub-category of the main images category. After doing so, use the {{Imagecat}} template on the article's page. —CC7567 20px-Rex.png (s)talk 01:31, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
        • Can you lend me a hand with this? I tried to create the category, but whenever I hit the preview button the format was all wrong. How can I make it so that the art category has nice little thumbnails in it? AdmiralNick22 03:12, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
          • I added the image category, CC7567. The format is off, so could you help me edit it? AdmiralNick22 02:27, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
            • Check your talk page and let me know if you need any further help. —CC7567 20px-Rex.png (s)talk 02:40, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
  4. Toprawa:
    • "Known ships" isn't working for me as an individual section. Aside from not being part of the Layout Guide format, "Known ships" is a bad variation of the dreaded "unknown fate" wording. This information can easily be incorporated into the primary "History" section. Toprawa and Ralltiir 05:19, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
      • No problem. Given that there is still only one "named" ship to the class, I am fine with removing that bit. Thanks for the advice Top! AdmiralNick22 01:18, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
        • Very nice article, Nick. Sorry I wasn't able to give it a full review, and sorry for taking so long to strike this. Kudos to the reviewers as well, who helped make this a very quality product. :) Toprawa and Ralltiir 19:26, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
  5. Clone attack, as promised:
    • "This proved fortunate": too POV-oriented, please change.
    • "This was finally confirmed in the Legacy Era Campaign Guide.": I removed the reference for this one because it was self-sourcing.
    • The article is looking excellent, and there were only a few minor errors that I corrected. Great work. CC7567 20px-Rex.png (talk) 03:08, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
      • I appreciate you taking the time to look over the article. It is starting to look nice an polished. :-) AdmiralNick22 15:25, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
  6. Grunny:
    • "Anti-Sith Insurgency" is a conjectural title for the conflict, so you need to reword without using that title. i.e. "during Emperor-in-exile Roan Fel's insurgency against the Sith." Or something similar.
      • Done. I edited the title so that it appears as "operations". AdmiralNick22 21:49, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
    • For clarity can you work a date into the "History" for the time of the Sith-Imp War, that is more descriptive than "following the devastation of the Yuuzhan Vong invasion"? Similar to how you have in the intro with "one hundred years after the Yuuzhan Vong War."
      • Done. I worked in the date of 127 ABY during the section mentioning the Sith-Imperial War. AdmiralNick22 21:49, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Should reference 2 be the same as reference 12? Also, you should also apply {{WebCite}} to refs 2, 11, 12, and 13.
    • Grunny (Talk) 07:55, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
      • Fixed, courtesy of my buddy Havac. :-) AdmiralNick22 14:00, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
  7. From the Moffship of Grand Moff Tranner:
    • You mention the cross of fire in the "Characteristics" section, yet you go on to describe its drawbacks in the "Role" section (second paragraph). All info on the cross of fire should be in the "Characteristics" section, with the actual purpose of it being in the "Role" section.
      • Fixed. AdmiralNick22 23:24, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
        • Not quite. Now you've got an extra LECG ref in "Characteristics," and there's no mention on the purpose of the cross of fire in "Role." Grand Moff Tranner Imperial Department of Military Research (Comlink) 23:26, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Otherwise, good job. Grand Moff Tranner Imperial Department of Military Research (Comlink) 14:52, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Comments

Approved as a Good article by AgriCorps 19:26, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


  • The MOS states that when ship models are named without the "-class", they should not be italicized. Can someone confirm this? CC7567 20px-Rex.png (talk) 03:08, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Yes, that is correct :-). Grunny (Talk) 03:48, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
      • Thanks, Grunny. Nick: I'll change this myself, since it's minor enough. CC7567 20px-Rex.png (talk) 04:48, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
        • Thanks guys. I appreciate your help. AdmiralNick22 15:25, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
          • So, is that the last of the objections? I am eager to see this officially given GA status. :) AdmiralNick22 23:58, 28 April 2009 (UTC)