Wookieepedia:Good article nominations/Surveyor-class reconnaissance frigate

< 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.

Surveyor-class reconnaissance frigate

(3 ACs/2 Users/5 Total)

(Votes required: No additional votes required to pass, please consider reviewing another article.)

Support

  1. ACvote Commander Code-8 Hello There! 08:28, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
  2. ACvote Nice job. UberSoldat93 ClanMudhornSignet-Redemption (talk) 04:05, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
  3. —spookywillowwtalk 06:12, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
  4. ACvote OOM 224 15:49, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
  5. Braha'tok enthusiast Hello there 16:14, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Object

Fan
  • Make sure to consistenty italicise "Surveyor"
  • "Surveyor stemmed from the Active-class fast attack frigate, another KDY starship of the Empire" The word choice "stemmed" is wrong here; either it was based on the Active-class frigate or its design stemmed from....
  • Please cite the Behind the scenes section. Fan26 (Talk) 18:43, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
    • Done the last two, but I believe that the ship class name is not italic when not using the word "class" next to it. Loqiical (talk) 21:20, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
    • Objection(s) overridden by AgriCorps 18:39, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
CC-8
  • One paragraph per subsection in the description doesn't look great, could you combine them? The info from complement could go into general characteristics and the other two could become "Armament and sensors." Commander Code-8 Hello There! 12:43, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
UberSoldat
  • "at least 2" main drives appears to be infobox-exclusive.
    • The source uses the plural but does not specify the exact number. Thus I wonder if I need to say "at least 2". Loqiical (talk) 11:38, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Dangling participle: "...extremely long–ranged sensor suites among the most sophisticated in the Imperial Navy, which were contained in the same structure with the command deck." UberSoldat93 ClanMudhornSignet-Redemption (talk) 11:25, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
    • Not sure which word is the problem here. Loqiical (talk) 11:38, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
    • On another note I got rid of a different dangling present active participle. Loqiical (talk) 11:54, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
      • I didn't see an issue with that one. UberSoldat93 ClanMudhornSignet-Redemption (talk) 12:17, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
        • The source doesn't specify whether the Surveyor is running active scans or if the opposing ship is running active scans. Loqiical (talk) 22:39, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
OOM
  • Please see my edit. The main takeaways here are in the "Armament and reconnaissance systems," which I reorganised for clarity (following FA precedence), made it consistently refer to the ship in its singular form, and corrected the use of dashes—the en dash should only be used to hyphenate compound words.
    • Anything else I need to change here? Loqiical (talk) 10:25, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
      • Nah, just wanted to show you the changes I've made and explain why I made them.
  • Per WP:MOS#Linking, individual words within proper compound nouns (such as "Surveyor-class reconnaissance frigate") should not be linked.
    • You should link it like this instead at the start of the article body: "''Surveyor''-class [[Scout ship|reconnaissance frigate]]" OOM 224 09:57, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Just wanting to confirm, in the interest of not making original comparisons: does Lead by Example really directly compare the Surveyor to other classes of ships, such as the Vindicator or the Bellator?
  • "powerful, extremely long-ranged sensor suites among the most sophisticated in the Imperial Navy" — grammatical error here
    • I'm pretty sure that this is correct. Loqiical (talk) 10:25, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
      • There's nothing connecting the sensor suites to the statement that they're among the most sophisticated ones in the navy
        • "Among" is working adjectivally to describe the sensor suites. I think that this is right. Loqiical (talk) 00:21, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
          • It was missing "that were," though I've fixed it myself. OOM 224 21:23, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
            • Not sure why we need to say "that were", but ok. Loqiical (talk) 05:23, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
  • "that promoted a high degree of effectiveness in scouting and information gathering" — this information better belongs in the "Armament and reconnaissance systems" section, since it has more to do with those than the ship's role. OOM 224 07:27, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
    • I think that this adds extra detail to the role. I don't think that it is necessary in "Armament and reconnaissance systems" because that section already explains how it is effective at those things. Loqiical (talk) 10:27, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
      • Sure, but I still don't believe there is a need to repeat what the ship's equipment do in the Role section, which is why I think the words that I quoted above should be removed. OOM 224 17:01, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
        • I condensed it, unless you don't want any of that part. Loqiical (talk) 00:20, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
          • I only meant removing the part I quoted above. Please see my edit here. OOM 224 21:23, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
            • Looks fine to me. Loqiical (talk) 05:23, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
  • I have also edited the infobox to include the Oxford comma, as well as to maintain consistency with the language used in the prose. Please review my edit and ensure that everything is in order. OOM 224 21:31, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
    • That is fine. But if everything is predicated on the article body, should something like "tractor beam projector" be changed to "tractor beam emitter"? Loqiical (talk) 05:23, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
      • That one is fine either way, since "projector" in this instance is just a synonym of "emitter," but if the source only uses one of those two terms, then I'd recommend sticking to the source's wording. OOM 224 15:49, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Comments

Approved as a Good article by AgriCorps 16:17, 30 March 2022 (UTC)