Wookieepedia:Good article nominations/Shadow Four/Legends

< 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.

Contents

  • 1 Shadow Four
    • 1.1 (3 ACs/2 Users/5 Total)
      • 1.1.1 Support
      • 1.1.2 Object
        • 1.1.2.1 Fett
        • 1.1.2.2 Grunny
        • 1.1.2.3 Moffship Malevolence
      • 1.1.3 Comments

Shadow Four

  • Nominated by: -- 1358 (Talk) 15:33, August 23, 2010 (UTC)
  • Nomination comments: Good ol' Shadow Squadron. Quote audio asked from JMAS.

(3 ACs/2 Users/5 Total)

Support

  1. ACvote CC7567 (talk) 21:20, August 23, 2010 (UTC)
  2. —Jedi Kasra (comlink) 00:48, August 24, 2010 (UTC)
  3. ACvote Grand Moff Tranner Imperial Department of Military Research (Comlink) 17:59, August 25, 2010 (UTC)
  4. —DarthRage (Leave a message after the beep)20:26, August 27, 2010 (UTC)
  5. ACvote JangFett (Talk) 21:06, August 27, 2010 (UTC)

Object

Fett
  • "The ship launched an ion ray toward the squadron, which was forced to take evasive actions." If I remember correctly, the Malevolence did not launch an ion ray immediately after jumping out of hyperspace. Skywalker and Shadow Squadron began to attack the Malevolence, and Grievous countered their attack by deploying tiers of Vulture droids. He then launched the ion ray at them afterward.
  • "The remains of Shadow Squadron continued their attack on the Malevolence, but upon facing heavy laser fire from the turbolasers of the battleship, Tano and Koon advised Skywalker to abandon the original plan of targeting the bridge, where General Grievous was located." You can cut or separate this long sentence. You can say Shadow 4 and Shadow Squadron continue their attack on the Malevolence, then next sentence the turbolasers caused them to be cowards, ect. :P
    • What original attack plan?
  • Nice job. JangFett (Talk) 01:39, August 24, 2010 (UTC)
    • Both fixed, hopefully. :P -- 1358 (Talk) 16:56, August 26, 2010 (UTC)
Grunny
  • More of a question: Should this article be at Shadow Four, rather than Shadow 4, given that the quote you have from the episode at the top of the article spells it out as Four? Likewise the Episode Guide also spells the numbers out for the squadron's call signs. Given that most of our callsign articles have their numbers spelled as well, is there a specific source that uses the number as 4? Grunny (talk) 01:42, August 24, 2010 (UTC)
    • Article moved. Thanks for the review. :) -- 1358 (Talk) 15:16, August 24, 2010 (UTC)
Moffship Malevolence
  • "Assuming that the Malevolence was on its way to the Kaliida Shoals Medical Center..." - how did he assume the medical center was the target?
  • "The Jedi Knight decided to take a shortcut to the medical center in order to arrive before the Malevolence. Together with his Padawan Ahsoka Tano, and Jedi Master Plo Koon, Skywalker would lead Shadow Squadron and its pilots, including Shadow Four, through the Kaliida Nebula." - these sentences should probably be combined; there's really no reason to have two separate sentences describing the same thing.
    • This objection remains. Grand Moff Tranner Imperial Department of Military Research (Comlink) 00:10, August 25, 2010 (UTC)
  • "Unaware of the space neebrays inhabiting the nebula, the squadron was caught by surprise upon noticing the massive creatures, but all of the pilots managed to evade the neebrays." - this seems unnecessarily long to me. Perhaps something like "The squadron was caught by surprise upon noticing the space neebrays that inhabited the nebula, but all of the pilots managed to evade the massive creatures"?
  • "As Shadow Four and his fellow pilots piloted their bombers out of the nebula..." - pilots piloted? One of those words needs to be replaced with a synonym.
  • Nothing for a P&T? Grand Moff Tranner Imperial Department of Military Research (Comlink) 18:01, August 24, 2010 (UTC)

Comments

Approved as a Good article by AgriCorps 16:01, August 30, 2010 (UTC)


  • Can another image be added somewhere in the body? CC7567 (talk) 21:20, August 23, 2010 (UTC)
  • My apologies, Xd—it seems like I ran straight through the article without stopping and reading carefully, as evidenced by the stuff that both Jang and Grunny picked up. I don't see the need to retract my vote, but it would be good if that content stuff could get fixed. Again, sorry about that, and thanks. CC7567 (talk) 01:52, August 24, 2010 (UTC)
    • Image added. It doesn't matter if you don't catch everything, that's why there are other users :-) Thanks for the review, anyway. :D -- 1358 (Talk) 12:45, August 24, 2010 (UTC)
  • I'll get to the objections asap. -- 1358 (Talk) 12:45, August 24, 2010 (UTC)