Wookieepedia:Good article nominations/Second Battle of Onderon (Naddist Uprising)

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a good article nomination that was successful. Please do not modify it.

Second Battle of Onderon

(+5)

Support

1. —Tommy9281^{(Not these...untutored youths!)} 14:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
2. Good. This could become an FA soon too. Chack Jadson ^(Talk) 18:41, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
3. Greyman ^(Talk) 02:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
4. Jeez. You really need to really consider going to FA, man. ;) ^Jorrel_Fraajic 22:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
5. Goodwood ^{(Alliance Intelligence)} 01:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Object

1. From the Bridge of Chack Jadson:
   • I don’t think Ulic’s distress signal is needed.
     • Removed (sadly)
   • "The jedi fight for you. the Jedi die for you." Several things are wrong with this sentence.
     • Addressed--this is the quote exactly as she says it.
   • "Nomi pauses" is unneeded.
     • addressed
   • "whom the evil King Ommin captured while Ulic and Warb Null dueled." Evil is POV.
     • addressed
   • "Kith Kark unfortunately became one with the Force when he met an untimely end on the battlefield." Unfortunately is also POV.
     • addressed
   • Explain how Ommin had an exoskeleton. Perhaps just say “his body.”
     • addressed
   • This is really minor, but the reference tags in the last paragraph of “Aftermath” are bigger than those used in the rest of the article. Please correct this.Chack Jadson ^(Talk) 22:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
     • addressed
2. From Greyman:
   • Like I mentioned on the Conclave on Deneba GAN, the double referencing is unneeded. If both references state the same information, then please only use one reference tag to avoid over-referencing. Greyman ^(Talk) 01:42, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
     • addressed
   • The BtS information sounds more like it is part of the actual IU part of the article. The BtS should state OOU perspectives; for example, such as who wrote the battle in which comic, any discrepancies that may appear, conflicting canon, etc.—in my opinion, it shouldn't be used to explain what essentially sounds like a "Legacy section", or something. Erm, I think that makes sense :P Greyman ^(Talk) 21:11, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
     • addressed

Comments

• Another good WP:TOTJ article up for nom.

—Tommy9281^{(Maybe it is time to liberate YOU!)} 18:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• • Thanks Chack for looking! Gents like you help gents like me improve their writing skills.—Tommy9281^{(Surely you can do better!)} 23:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)