- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a good article nomination that was unsuccessful. Please do not modify it.
Super Star Destroyer
- Nominated by: VT-16 10:49, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
- Nomination comments: Here we go agaaain. I tried to rewrite most of it to simply reflect the various types and their histories, not list all the Executors and what they did. Hopefully it will pass "good" this time. :) VT-16 10:49, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
(0 AC/0 users/0 total)
Support
Object
- Toprawa
- Many things are not sourced.
The article should include an infobox.In this instance, intro sourcing is really unnecessary, and should be worked into the article proper.These lists are really unnecessary. Rather, the article would benefit from a section that enumerates and briefly describes each SSD.- Source list should be in order by OOU publication date; additionally, the Source list seem woefully brief. I'm sure there are many more items, very likely with more information that could be included. Toprawa and Ralltiir 16:09, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
It seems like you're getting the right idea of what I'm referring to. In response to your comment below about each Executor-class ship going only in the Executor-class article, that, respectfully, is where you're mistaken. The significance of this article is its incredibly broad scope of information. It encompasses everything that is considered a Super Star Destroyer, down to the very last ship. For this article to be comprehensive, it should discuss each individual ship. Not in lurid detail, of course, but each one should be given its own brief topic. As an example of how this article could be best sectioned, look at the Rakehell Squadron article to see how each pilot of the squadron is given their own subsection. That could be applied here to each individual ship class, and then subsection by each individual ship of that class. Indeed, this article is going to be very long, by simple virtue of its very broad scope. Also, for the Appearances and Source lists, again, as a result of this article's broad coverage, these lists should identify every single appearance and source in which a Super Star Destroyer appears. That means every Executor source, every Iron Fist source, etc.Toprawa and Ralltiir 17:47, 29 October 2008 (UTC)- Introduction is in desperate need of expansion
- I agree with whomever made the suggestion below to simply pick one ship for the infobox image, sans the caption, which isn't necessary.
- Details in the infobox should be expanded. What are the other manufacturers, for ex? Toprawa and Ralltiir 15:48, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- IFYLOFD
- Toprawa got most of my objections, but I do have one little thing. Give context on Palpatine. Who is he? IFYLOFD (And now, young Skywalker, you will die.) 19:38, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
- Your joking, right? The article breaks Rules 3, 4, 10, and it has no info box image. It certainly doesn't cover all the sources, it doesn't use all available references, and half the article is a list, breaking the MoS. The BtS needs to expanded, sourced, and removed of all unsourced speculation. I also believe that the info you deleted did more harm than good to the article, which could almost be counted as vandalism, since it was sourced, relevant information. Replace the info you deleted, though keep the info you added as well. Expand it greatly, and fix the numerous POV issues as well. DC 01:08, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
- Jinzler
The appearances are not in chronological order--Jinzler 22:43, 29 October 2008 (UTC)- I see this has now been addressed
SSDs do not appear in The Core of Corruption like the article says, one is mentioned--Jinzler 22:43, 29 October 2008 (UTC)The Core of Corruption and Jaws of the Sarlacc in the appearances list should have the WizardsCite template, as they are from Wizards.com--Jinzler 22:43, 29 October 2008 (UTC)An SSD appears in Allegiance, this is missing from the list of appearances--Jinzler 22:43, 29 October 2008 (UTC)- There are many other appearances missing --Jinzler 22:43, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
- Please familiarize yourself with the {{Sofixit}} clause, which your middle three objections fall under. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 23:10, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, I have now and I have addressed those issues --Jinzler 21:29, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
- Please familiarize yourself with the {{Sofixit}} clause, which your middle three objections fall under. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 23:10, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Comments
- Would the brief class descriptions go in the "characteristics" section? There's already 19 source present. There are not many left that I can remember. Most early sources just repeated info about the Executor much of which is now outdated. But other than that there's nothing else to add. VT-16 20:40, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
- Added more info on each class in a separate section. Got more sourcing. Removed BtS as it was just opinion. Executor ships by individual names goes in the Executor-class article, not here, that's why they were removed. Hope this is getting better. This is for a good status, not a great one. I don't even know what's required for that, so I aimed low. Don't know what more info I can cram into this that isn't already there. =/ Will do a sourced collage for the info box picture when I have time. VT-16 10:03, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
- It would be best if you could post these changes underneath my individual objections, so we can discuss each objection respectively. Toprawa and Ralltiir 17:47, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
- I agree on including every source, but every last SSD mentioned? I hope it's not going to be as broad in the Star Destroyer article as well. That's potentially thousands of ships. Not to mention the cruiser one. I just disagree that this should deal with every individual ship, and not just the broader classifications under the term. I think I'll add the Executor variants under the Executor tag, but other than that, I don't see why this article has to have every single ship. There's no single ships in the frigate, destroyer or cruiser articles. Of course, that could be expanded, but for something like "cruiser", it would be a mini-encyclopedia all by itself. So far, I've only included ships that have a physical particularity about themselves. VT-16 18:33, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
- It would be best if you could post these changes underneath my individual objections, so we can discuss each objection respectively. Toprawa and Ralltiir 17:47, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
- Added more info on each class in a separate section. Got more sourcing. Removed BtS as it was just opinion. Executor ships by individual names goes in the Executor-class article, not here, that's why they were removed. Hope this is getting better. This is for a good status, not a great one. I don't even know what's required for that, so I aimed low. Don't know what more info I can cram into this that isn't already there. =/ Will do a sourced collage for the info box picture when I have time. VT-16 10:03, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
- VT-16, I understand you might be a little less familiar with the GAN process, but Toprawa is correct in that this article will be quite large, even under the "broad coverage" descriptor. And yes, the Star Destroyer and cruiser articles should, in all reality, be mammoth articles ranging in the hundreds of kilobytes in order to be considered "broad". There is so much information. You can talk briefly about each ship (read:A paragraph or two at minimum) in the history section, but citing the frigate, destroyer and cruiser articles, which are not GA and are in sore need of serious expansion, will not get you anywhere. That's just the way it is, and it won't be changing any time soon, even if it means this article is not GA'd. Atarumaster88
(Talk page) 19:29, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
- No need to take that tone, I was genuinely asking, because I've never seen anything quite as large as what is being proposed, anywhere on this site. (Except for the Palpatine or Anakin/Vader articles, heh.) Either way, did more organizing and found as many sources as possible. Some aren't really locked down with a date, and I need help on those. The Databank and FF ones. I'll leave the mini-bios for later, too tired now. VT-16 21:23, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, wasn't trying to come off as snippy. But yes, we do have delusions of grandeur when it comes to article size. ;-) And I humbly beg to differ. Atarumaster88 (Talk page) 00:40, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
- Point taken. =X Well, that's certainly something to strive for. I only doubt it will happen for this article, even with having a small mention of every ship, there's limits to how much actual info we've actually got. VT-16 07:49, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
- @Jinzler: Well, the problem is, I haven't read all the books that might have it, so I don't know all of them. That's why I need help. I've only gotten the ones that are listed on the Executor pages, for the most part, and that's what I know. =/ VT-16 07:51, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, wasn't trying to come off as snippy. But yes, we do have delusions of grandeur when it comes to article size. ;-) And I humbly beg to differ. Atarumaster88
- No need to take that tone, I was genuinely asking, because I've never seen anything quite as large as what is being proposed, anywhere on this site. (Except for the Palpatine or Anakin/Vader articles, heh.) Either way, did more organizing and found as many sources as possible. Some aren't really locked down with a date, and I need help on those. The Databank and FF ones. I'll leave the mini-bios for later, too tired now. VT-16 21:23, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
- VT, if I were trying to make this article a GA, here's some things I'd probably do:
- Get rid of the collage, and stick with a good picture of an Executor-class SSD. I understand why you'd want a collage in the infobox, but isn't a collage technically fanart?
- Remove the sections on the individual classes. The way it looks now, there really doesn't seem to be any info in those sections that are all that relevant to the article as a whole, and any info that might be relevant could easily be merged with the other sections. Besides, by just glancing through them, you have some classes listed that have never (to my knowledge) been called SSDs.
- I'd probably also cut back on the number of images in the article. I could understand why you'd want to keep them, but unless/until you get more info, they just seem to be one on top of the other.
- To be honest, I don't think this is the type of article that can be made into a GA, but feel free to prove me wrong. And if you need any assistance, I'd be glad to help. Grand Moff Tranner
(Comlink) 11:11, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the help, but I think T&R meant for it to be structured like that. As for the profile image, it's not fanart if only offical images are used/cropped together (and sourced in the image info), and that's exactly the reason why I chose a collage of different designs, not picking one class only. The classes and singular designs get mentioned for being of the types lumped together as SSDs. I think I will do a similar rewrite and reworking on the SD article down the road, removing the "ships similar to" list. VT-16 11:32, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
- Bringing this up now, since I don't know what else to add to the article. Any comments, positive/negative? VT-16 08:28, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Vote to remove nomination (AC vote only)
Due to severe idling. Toprawa and Ralltiir 02:05, 10 December 2008 (UTC)- Per Toprawa. Chack Jadson (Talk) 02:26, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- DC 03:47, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
