- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a good article nomination that was unsuccessful. Please do not modify it.
TIE Experimental Project
(0)
Support
- I personally think it's a good article, and I've seen worse pages become GA's. I mean, what's so great about Cloak of Deception? TIEPilot051999 07:04, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Oppose
- From the Grey of Man.
- Incorrect use of commas throughout the article—could use a solid copy-edit.
- Huge parts of the article are basically play-by-plays. These need to re-written properly.
- Bullets used in the body of the article. Those pieces of information need to be worked into paragraph(s) with proper prose, per rule 1(a).
- Has unsourced quotes, rule 2(a).
- Categories are not placed correctly, and lack of proper categories.
- Lead should be longer than one sentence.
Some of the images that are used have flawed "Summary" formatting. Rule 6(a), images are to be properly sourced, which includes formatting.
- This is all just after a cursory glance, without even reading the majority of the article. This article needs more work before it will be ready for a check mark. Greyman(Paratus) 16:41, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Comment
- Cloak of Deception is an OOU article which does not follow the same layout as IU articles, such as this one. As such, they are not on the same playing fields with regards to review. Likewise, Cloak of Deception is one of better put together novel articles on Wookieepedia. I really wouldn't suggest nominating articles simply because "I've seen worse"—instead, I would suggest putting work and effort into an article, and creating something you can be proud of. Simply nominating an article, without putting any work into it, suggests that the GAN rules laid out at the top of this page are most likely not adhered to. Greyman(Paratus) 16:41, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
- I think I solved the formatting problem with the images, but I agree with Greyman, this needs a lot of work. --Jedimca0(Do or Do Not, There is No Try) 17:20, 29 November 2007 (UTC)