Wookieepedia:Good article nominations/Unidentified clone trooper (Prosecutor) (second nomination)

< 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.

Unidentified clone trooper (Prosecutor)

  • Nominated by: Manoof (talk) 01:46, January 4, 2015 (UTC)
  • Nomination comments:2nd nom

(3 ACs/2 Users/5 Total)

Support

  1. JorrelWiki-shrinkableFraajic 17:56, January 11, 2015 (UTC)
  2. Ayrehead02 (talk) 23:49, January 11, 2015 (UTC)
  3. ACvote Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 17:55, January 19, 2015 (UTC)
  4. ACvote Exiled Jedi Oldrepublic crest (Greetings) 19:24, January 19, 2015 (UTC)
  5. Inqvote Supreme Emperor (talk) 15:55, January 24, 2015 (UTC)

Object

Ayrehead
  • "The clone trooper survived the initial attack and hid until the clone commandos of Delta Squad boarded the ship, but he was killed a short time later by a scavenger droid when he opened a maintenance hatch for the Republic commando RC-1138." Could you split this sentence and change it to after opening? It sounds a little odd. Ayrehead02 (talk) 11:30, January 7, 2015 (UTC)
  • You should mention that the ship was in the Chaykin cluster somewhere in the body. Ayrehead02 (talk) 11:30, January 7, 2015 (UTC)
    • I've done a small rewrite of the intro and made mention in the body of the corbantis system, which was within the chaykin cluster. I've run it through word and it seems to like the grammar... Did mention of the chaykin cluster still need to be made? Manoof (talk) 10:03, January 10, 2015 (UTC)
      • I'd put it in because it mission itself is called "Mission to the Chaykin Cluster"—at least, our article suggests that. It may only be a conjectural name for the mission, but I haven't played the game so I'm not sure. "...after it reappeared in the Corbantis system of the Chaykin Cluster." allows a link without sacrificing sentence structure. JorrelWiki-shrinkableFraajic 07:33, January 11, 2015 (UTC)
        • Indeed I think it still needs adding. Ayrehead02 (talk) 11:45, January 11, 2015 (UTC)
          • Done, though not sure if the sentence still works as I am in dire need of sleep. Manoof (talk) 12:07, January 11, 2015 (UTC)
            • I think it's sufficient. You may want to add an "in" between the comma and "part", but that's your decision. JorrelWiki-shrinkableFraajic 17:56, January 11, 2015 (UTC)
📔
  • There seems to be enough about the conflict between the Prosecutor and the Trandoshan slavers to warrant the creation of an article for the battle between the two. Notably, the Prosecutor had intercepted transmissions that the Trandoshans ended up stealing, the ship disappeared for two weeks, and then the ship reappeared with (apparently) one survivor in the torpedo bay. As such, I've added a redlink while adding a couple other links throughout. JorrelWiki-shrinkableFraajic 07:33, January 11, 2015 (UTC)
    • Thanks! Made a page :) Manoof (talk) 12:07, January 11, 2015 (UTC)
Toprawa
  • My preliminary objection concerns the infobox image. Whenever you're uploading an image for the infobox, always make sure it's at least 250 pixels wide so that it fits in the space. The image you have there is now is 229 pixels wide, which is why it looks like that. Try and upload a new image that's 250 pixels wide. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 18:32, January 13, 2015 (UTC)
    • To be honest it was something I meant to do and completely forgot, and nobody brought it up so I left it. I've changed it now. Manoof (talk) 07:03, January 14, 2015 (UTC)
  • If you plan on writing more Legends clone articles, this is something you're going to need to learn to play attention to. The article currently sources this entire sentence clause to the now-defunct clone trooper SW.com Encyclopedia entry: "Cloned from the Mandalorian bounty hunter Jango Fett on the planet Kamino for the Galactic Republic..." However, if you open up that Encyclopedia entry, it doesn't say anything about clone troopers being cloned from the Mandalorian bounty hunter Jango Fett, meaning this statement requires a more accurate reference. The best option is to stay consistent with what our other clone trooper status articles are doing and use the clone trooper entry from the also-defunct SW.com Databank. Use the Wooley article as an example of how to do properly reference these statements. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 18:13, January 15, 2015 (UTC)
    • Done, cheers mate! Manoof (talk) 01:08, January 17, 2015 (UTC)
  • Does the game offer captions for the quotes? I'm wondering about the punctuation of some of them.
    • I just double checked, the quotes are 100% accurate to the game's subtitles. Word for word, grammar and punctuation. Do they need changing or... Manoof (talk) 09:35, January 19, 2015 (UTC)
      • Technically, there are punctuation errors in there, but as long as they match the game's captions, it's perfectly fine. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 17:54, January 19, 2015 (UTC)
  • Amazon really isn't a reliable source for publication release dates. Although we typically use Amazon to source release dates in infoboxes, these dates are often proved incorrect by more primary sources. I would suggest avoiding trying to specify an exact date for the video game's release if you can't cite the date to something more reliable than Amazon. Just specifying the year is sufficient. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 21:46, January 18, 2015 (UTC)
    • Ah ok, makes sense. There was an article from the old starwars.com site dated march 1 saying "out now", so I assumed the amazon date was correct. Removed it now, but is it fine on the Star Wars: Republic Commando page? Manoof (talk) 09:35, January 19, 2015 (UTC)
      • Well, it's not that the Feb 28 is incorrect necessarily, it's just that we don't have any perfectly reliable way to confirm that other than Amazon, so I feel like it's better to avoid asserting it in status articles. As for the Republic Commando page, my opinion is that it's ok to keep it there for now. I consider all non-status articles works in progress anyway, so it's not as critical as a status article. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 17:54, January 19, 2015 (UTC)

Comments

Approved as a Good article by AgriCorps 02:49, January 26, 2015 (UTC)


  • Hmmm, just noticed some status articles drop the parenthetical part of the name in the infobox. Some don't. Is there general consensus on which way to go? I had a look at a bunch of policies and couldn't see anything to indicate either way... Manoof (talk) 10:27, January 14, 2015 (UTC)
    • Yes. If the article title is conjectural, include the parenthetical part. If it's not conjectural, drop it. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 18:14, January 15, 2015 (UTC)