Wookieepedia:Good article nominations/Second Battle of Ord Biniir

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

Second Battle of Ord Biniir

~~The infobox says the battle occurred in 0 BBY, yet the intro and the body say 0 ABY. Which is correct?~~ Grand Moff Tranner ^(Comlink) 20:23, May 19, 2011 (UTC)
- ABY, thanks for catching that. Fixed. Kilson^{(Let's have a chat)} 21:01, May 19, 2011 (UTC)

~~Please check my addition of {{1stID}} in the Appearances section. The 1stID tag is needed, but I want to make sure it's in the right place.~~
- It's in the correct place, thanks.
~~I've gone ahead and done it for you, but next time, please make sure to reload the infobox—going with what's already in the article when you begin to write often promotes an incomplete infobox.~~
- Again, thank you. Kilson^{(Let's have a chat)} 21:23, May 21, 2011 (UTC)
~~Does the 2/181st require a separate article from the 181st? The way that the squadron is linked in the infobox is rather misleading.~~
- I created a stub for 2/181st and edited the article. I'll get to 1/181st and 3/181st soon. Thanks for the review CC. Kilson^{(Let's have a chat)} 03:58, May 26, 2011 (UTC)
Good work. CC7567 ^(talk) 20:01, May 21, 2011 (UTC)

~~Please reload the infobox.~~ Toprawa and Ralltiir 21:36, May 27, 2011 (UTC)
- Reloaded. Kilson^{(Let's have a chat)} 03:55, May 28, 2011 (UTC)
Battle articles should avoid making assumptive, extrapolated claims in an effort to fill in the previous and next battle fields in the infobox. This kind of fanon is rampant on this wiki, and this article is currently guilty of this type of thing. Specifically, the article is asserting that the Assault on Yavin 4 immediately preceded this battle, that the Battle of Aargonar 3 took place concurrently with this battle, and that the Second Battle of Yavin 4 and the Skirmish above Yavin 4 immediately followed this battle. The fact of the matter is, nothing in the accompanying referencing for any of this info in any way suggests any of this to be so. Star Wars: Battlefront, for example, in no way connects the two battles from that game to this battle. All we know for sure is that this is the likely general timeline of proceedings, but this is nothing more than speculation and fanon. And so this should be excluded from the infobox unless we have a literal direct connection made by a canonical source. Toprawa and Ralltiir 02:58, June 1, 2011 (UTC)

Approved as a Good article by AgriCorps 23:16, June 1, 2011 (UTC)

I added "Captain" to each of the quote attribution lines missing the rank for consistency. If that needs to be revised, please insert whatever the correct rank may otherwise be. Also, I figure it's fairly likely this battle is also mentioned in The Essential Chronology if it's also included in NEC. Won't leave an objection to this point, but it's worth looking into. Toprawa and Ralltiir 16:36, June 1, 2011 (UTC)
- First, there was no mention of the battle in The Essential Chronology. Second, thanks for adding the quote attributions, but a few of them were when he was a Colonel, so I changed it around. I also added a bit to the Aftermath section about Colonel Fel's interrogation that's probably relevant, which you should probably look over before the nom is archived. Kilson^{(Let's have a chat)} 21:10, June 1, 2011 (UTC)