Wookieepedia:Good article nominations/Taris Civil Authority police cruiser

< 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.

Taris Civil Authority police cruiser

  • Nominated by: NayayenOld Republic military symboltalk 21:49, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Nomination comments From redlink to GA with only me editing it (bar Image>File bot), it's possible-ish.

(3 ACs/2 Users/5 Total)

Support

  1. Remember not to link in quotes; otherwise it looks good after my copyedit. —Master Jonathan(Jedi Council Chambers) 18:39, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
  2. ACvote CC7567 (talk) 02:57, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
  3. Copy edited. Particularly glaring was the intro bit "following fugitives into ship" :). SoresuMakashi(Everything I tell you is the truth) 09:54, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
  4. ACvote Jonjedigrandmaster (Jedi Beacon) 17:33, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
  5. ACvote Graestan(Talk) 22:09, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Object

  1. Attack of the Clone
    • What exactly is the "repulsorlift craft"? It's not specified entirely, but it appears that it should have its own article or be linked.
    • Please reword "caught up"; it's both colloquial and unspecific.
      • I personally think it is the best phrase that fits and is not colloquial. The only other phrase that could work is "become involved in" but then that makes it sound as if Camper and Jarael were doing the arresting. OED entry
        • It's not very encyclopedic, in my opinion. The word choice can also mean that they were unwillingly affiliated in the event, and I can't tell if that's what you mean or not. Also, "involved in" shouldn't be improper if you state who was actually doing the arresting, thereby being more to-the-point as I'm advising you to do below. CC7567 (talk) 20:16, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Are the people's nicknames really necessary? If that's what they're always referred to as, then it's more or less fine, but otherwise they appear to be unneeded.
      • It is what they are always referred to in the comics so I've gone with it here whilst giving their full name for clarity.
    • The first two paragraphs of the "History" are unrelated to the cruiser itself, and the cruiser isn't even mentioned. Please either shorten them or clarify why so much detail is relevant to an article about the police cruiser.
      • They are giving context for why the police cruisers were needed and who they were sent after. I've reworded the second one a bit to make it more contexty...That is a word really...
        • "Camper and Gryph were previously acquainted through their work together in smuggling the fugitive Zovius Mendu to Corellia a few months before Gryph was captured by Carrick." Now, is this really directly related to the cruiser itself? There's still a lot of information that's just making it confusing; it sounds like you're writing an article about a battle or a character involved in it, not the cruiser. Context isn't needed to set up every single part of the situation unless it's directly related to the cruiser. The article needs to be more to-the-point. Furthermore, if you simply say who the fugitives were in that sentence you added about why the cruisers were needed, and if you also condense the preceding details, it should be fine. Also, see the new objection below. CC7567 (talk) 20:16, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
          • I've rewritten the whole section and cut down the excess contextual waffle (from the intro too). NayayenOld Republic military symboltalk 22:29, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
    • "Clipping" has the same issue of being colloquial and unspecific; I'm not entirely sure what you mean.
      • I'll agree that this is colloquial. Changed to "Hitting".
    • Can you get something in the Bts about where they first appeared, since you already mentioned who penciled them? It'll add more clarify. CC7567 (talk) 00:56, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
      • Added NayayenOld Republic military symboltalk 19:28, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
        • I've also removed the duplicate link to Issue 3 that the addition caused. I only half removed it and you filled it back in, my bad. NayayenOld Republic military symboltalk 22:29, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Please source that {{Fact}} tag.
      • Gah, I didn't word it properly first time. Reworded and sourced. NayayenOld Republic military symboltalk 22:29, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
    • If this is an article about the cruiser, then the cruiser needs to be mentioned first thing in the "History". Otherwise, it still sounds like the article is about an event. It appears that the first sentence of "Characteristics" would better fit in the "History"; the people using it are more related to the "History" than to the build of the cruiser. CC7567 (talk) 20:16, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
      • Moved the sentence. NayayenOld Republic military symboltalk 22:29, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the review CC. NayayenOld Republic military symboltalk 22:29, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
  2. Due to the recent add-on to Rule 8, you'll need to create a page for Taris Civil Authority gunship. (No redlinks in the intro) Jonjedigrandmaster (Jedi Beacon) 21:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Thanks for pointing that out. Created article and I've also removed references to "repulsorlift" in the cruiser article because neither the gunship or speeder are explicitly stated as being repulsorcraft, just not spaceworthy. NayayenOld Republic military symboltalk 13:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
  3. Graestan the Merciless:
    • Intro: "the standard craft" – This is speculatory, I believe, unless the source states explicitly that the other craft was the standard one.
    • A "Role" section would be appropriate per the Layout Guide.
      • Added, if a little short. NayayenOld Republic military symboltalk 11:15, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Graestan(Talk) 17:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Comments

Approved as a Good article by AgriCorps 22:09, 2 August 2009 (UTC)