- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a good article nomination that was successful. Please do not modify it.
Shadowsuit
- Nominated by: Skippy Farlstendoiro 17:34, September 19, 2010 (UTC)
- Nomination comments: Someone said once that we had too many character noms and that we should have other stuff noms too, so I thought I could help… Now I could get used to this.
(3 ACs/2 Users/5 Total)
Support
- Omicron 18:29, September 20, 2010 (UTC)
- The Shadowsuit! Coming next, the Shadowtie! ~ SavageBob 15:56, October 9, 2010 (UTC)
Cavalier One
(Squadron channel) 08:07, October 20, 2010 (UTC)
--Eyrezer 08:42, October 21, 2010 (UTC)
Let's get this off the GAN. 1358 (Talk) 13:01, October 21, 2010 (UTC)
Object
Lacks a first mention tag.- Done.--Skippy Farlstendoiro 18:05, September 19, 2010 (UTC)
Do something to your references (and that source). It should be "sourcebook", not (sourcebook).1358 (Talk) 17:59, September 19, 2010 (UTC)- Fixed sources and references, also a couple of typos. <-Omicron 18:29, September 20, 2010 (UTC)
- You meant this?--Skippy Farlstendoiro 18:53, September 20, 2010 (UTC)
- Can you fix the Scum and Villainy references to be like that Scum and Villainy item in the sources? 1358 (Talk) 19:50, September 21, 2010 (UTC)
- I've done... something, but I'm almost sure it wasn't what you're asking me to. Problem is, I can't see the difference between the SV references and the SV item in the sources.--Skippy Farlstendoiro 19:56, September 21, 2010 (UTC)
- Can you fix the Scum and Villainy references to be like that Scum and Villainy item in the sources? 1358 (Talk) 19:50, September 21, 2010 (UTC)
You seem to have references that contain multiple sources. Rather stack several references [1][2][3] than have it like that.1358 (Talk) 11:45, September 22, 2010 (UTC)- Done, I hope I don't have to rollback this. --Skippy Farlstendoiro 18:17, September 23, 2010 (UTC)
Prepare to be savaged...
Just a couple things: First, rather than assuming that Scum and Villainy is mistaken, why not say that some units weighted 2 kg, while others weighed 3? This prevents us from having to designate one quantity as canon and another as non-canon.Finally, I don't think it's allowed to have redlinks in the source list, so you'll probably have to at least stub the Saga Edition Conversion Guide. Tis all! ~ SavageBob 21:37, October 8, 2010 (UTC)- Both done.--Skippy Farlstendoiro 12:38, October 9, 2010 (UTC)
Eyrezer
Doesn't the stats entry for these armors include a specific model type beyond the generic description? --Eyrezer 23:17, October 9, 2010 (UTC)
- Not that I can find.--Skippy Farlstendoiro 19:43, October 10, 2010 (UTC)
Cav
The article seems to be over-referenced with up to four ref tags on some items. Can these be reduced? If one source states a fact, but others repeat it, then surely only having one source would be justifiable? I understand the need for proper sourcing, but as it is, the article flow is ruined by the ref tags in some cases. - Cavalier One
(Squadron channel) 11:51, October 19, 2010 (UTC)
- I completely disagree with your priorities. IMO, a FA must be complete, including completely referenced with all the needed footnotes. But debating this is a lost battle. Done; lemme consider for a few days if I'll retire the nomination.--Skippy Farlstendoiro 18:07, October 19, 2010 (UTC)
- FWIW, I agree with Cav. While I understand your desire to be as exhaustive as possible with refs, we do need to consider readability, and long strings of superscripts do affect that. For similar reasons, I disagree with our policy of linking every term that can possibly be linked; the sea of blue links makes it more difficult to read the text. But I've had to concede to site-wide consensus on that one. I hope you'll not stop nominating stuff simply because people disagree with your favored practice. We need people like you to keep nominating quality articles! (I'm still waiting for my shadowtie, fr'instance.) ~ SavageBob 18:21, October 19, 2010 (UTC)
- Farl, there's no need to contemplate retiring the nomination. If all the sources say the same thing, there is no need to add mutliple refs to confirm it. To put it another way, if one were to FA Han Solo, we wouldn't ref the fact he is Corellian to the hundreds of different sources that state this. However, perhaps creating one ref tag that then lists the multiple sources in the Reflist at the end would be acceptable? - Cavalier One(Squadron channel) 08:07, October 20, 2010 (UTC)
- Farl, there's no need to contemplate retiring the nomination. If all the sources say the same thing, there is no need to add mutliple refs to confirm it. To put it another way, if one were to FA Han Solo, we wouldn't ref the fact he is Corellian to the hundreds of different sources that state this. However, perhaps creating one ref tag that then lists the multiple sources in the Reflist at the end would be acceptable? - Cavalier One
- FWIW, I agree with Cav. While I understand your desire to be as exhaustive as possible with refs, we do need to consider readability, and long strings of superscripts do affect that. For similar reasons, I disagree with our policy of linking every term that can possibly be linked; the sea of blue links makes it more difficult to read the text. But I've had to concede to site-wide consensus on that one. I hope you'll not stop nominating stuff simply because people disagree with your favored practice. We need people like you to keep nominating quality articles! (I'm still waiting for my shadowtie, fr'instance.) ~ SavageBob 18:21, October 19, 2010 (UTC)
Comments
Approved as a Good article by AgriCorps 13:01, October 21, 2010 (UTC)