Wookieepedia:Good article nominations/Wookiee dual missile turret

< 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.

Wookiee dual missile turret

  • Nominated by: Manoof (talk) 02:02, January 28, 2015 (UTC)
  • Nomination comments: from CA, double checked against policies

(4 ACs/2 Users/6 Total)

Support

  1. 501st dogma(talk) 01:41, February 4, 2015 (UTC)
  2. ACvote IFYLOFD (Talk) 02:22, February 15, 2015 (UTC)
  3. Ayrehead02 (talk) 10:43, April 15, 2015 (UTC)
  4. ACvote Winterz (talk) 16:19, April 22, 2015 (UTC)
  5. ACvote Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 18:31, June 29, 2015 (UTC)
  6. ACvote Sir Cavalier of OneFarStar(Squadron channel) 00:23, July 1, 2015 (UTC)

Object

501st
  • The part about the turret being used in the Clone Wars does not belong in the description. That's history stuff. Likewise with the Trandoshan and Separatist stuff.
    • Moved Manoof (talk) 10:10, January 30, 2015 (UTC)
      • After the move, you're sourcing the entirety of the first sentence to 5, which is incorrect.
        • There was another ref in there
  • It would probably be good to clarify that Kashyyyk was the homeworld of the Wookiees.
  • Infobox: I don't believe the protection field needs to have the Trandoshan and CIS part, as the turret would work against any aerial attack. Just aerial assaults will suffice.
  • GAR, and the Special operations brigade needs to be mentioned in the body, as you have it in the infobox. 501st dogma(talk) 19:50, January 29, 2015 (UTC)
    • Done Manoof (talk) 10:10, January 30, 2015 (UTC)
      • You're sourcing the Special Operations Brigade to 2 in the body, while it's sourced to 3 in the infobox. 501st dogma(talk) 19:40, January 31, 2015 (UTC)
        • Looks like I forgot the referencing when I rewrote that section. Done Manoof (talk) 08:56, February 1, 2015 (UTC)
          • Now you're sourcing GAR and Delta to 3, which isn't appropriate as the note for 3 pertains only to the Special Operations Brigade. 501st dogma(talk) 17:28, February 1, 2015 (UTC)
            • I see what I did there :/ Should be fixed now... Manoof (talk) 05:52, February 2, 2015 (UTC)
Floyd
  • Missing punctuation in the intro quote.
    • Fixed.
  • Are we sure that we can say it's even indirectly mentioned in Order 66? It seems like it just replaces it entirely—that's not an indirect mention, that's a continuity incongruity. IFYLOFD (Talk) 02:32, February 13, 2015 (UTC)
    • Given the differences in physical description as well as the method of fire (turbolaser vs missiles), I'm happy to change it. Not sure if all mention of the book should go, or if a short sentence should be left in the BTS section. I've removed it as an appearance and reworded the BTS in case it stays. Manoof (talk) 10:44, February 14, 2015 (UTC)
Cav
  • I don't think you need the multiple affiliations in the infobox at all; if the weapons were only co-opted by Delta Squad during their deployment, then the weapons aren't really affiliated with them. They only really borrowed what was on hand. I would reduce it to simply "Wookiees."
    • Removed Delta squad's branch in affiliation, and mention of the GAR and SOB. I've kept the republic as an affiliation, since the wookiees were affiliated with the republic. Is that ok? Manoof (talk) 01:08, March 17, 2015 (UTC)
  • "Wookiee turret crafters" appears to be a distinct occupation/group. An article is possibly needed for them. - Sir Cavalier of OneFarStar(Squadron channel) 12:54, March 16, 2015 (UTC)
    • Possibly an occupation, though I think that would be speculation. The manufacturer in the guide is listed as "Individually produced by Wookiee turret crafters", while the manufacturers of the bowcaster and wookiee homing rocket are both listed as "Individually manufactured by Wookiee crafters". The wookiee quad turret is listed with "Mass produced by Wookiee crafters". Only the description of the bowcaster mentions a manufacturer—"Wookiee crafters individually manufacture each Bowcaster, and no two bowcasters are exactly alike. However, ammunition clips are all uniform and interchangeable between different bowcasters." As such I don't think an article is needed, since the terms seem to be too vague to have any worthwhile meaning. Up to you though. Manoof (talk) 01:08, March 17, 2015 (UTC)
Toprawa
  • Preliminary objection: It's my opinion, as well as the opinion of other AC members whom I've surveyed, that the archived Republic Commando Lucas Arts page capitalizes the first letters of "Wookie Dual Launcher," even though all the letters are capitalized. The W, D, and L are slightly larger than the other letters in each word, indicating capitalization. The article should reflect this. Note, also, that the website indeed calls it the Wookie Dual Launcher, misspelled. The article also needs to indicate this. Question: What exactly does the game guide call this thing? Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 00:22, April 15, 2015 (UTC)
    • I agree on the capitalization, I decided not to capitalize as I assumed it was perhaps similar to the game guide. The game guide using capitalization for each individual word in the heading, but is later capitalized as the article name in the description, so only Wookiee is capitalized. I've gone ahead and made sure any mention of "Wookiee dual launcher" is now "Wookiee Dual Launcher" and mentioned the misspelling in the BTS. I've assumed the use of the correct spelling of Wookiee to be used every time except the mention in the BTS. Manoof (talk) 05:03, April 15, 2015 (UTC)
      • Ok, you really didn't answer my question, though. What does the game guide call it exactly? Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 14:36, April 15, 2015 (UTC)
        • Sorry, I thought I had. "Wookiee dual missile turret". It's also used in the game, same capitalization. Manoof (talk) 05:00, April 16, 2015 (UTC)
  • In the intro quote, the word juggernaut is misspelled. Is this your error or the game's?
    • Game's, I just add "[sic]" after the misspelling, correct? Manoof (talk) 08:47, June 8, 2015 (UTC)
  • The date explanation in reference note 3 is not correct. I tried to clean it up, but the information that's there is wrong. Cade and I are in the process of researching to fix it, but this objection needs to remain until that is resolved. In the meantime, I notice that our Kashyyyk mission article says that the battle takes place 1,070 days after Geonosis. Is that just wrong? Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 00:30, June 6, 2015 (UTC)
    • I'm sure the novel said 1,088 and added it from the novel itself, but I just moved house (literally 2 days ago) and so all the novels are in boxes, not sure which one so I can't double check for you anytime soon. The game itself says 785, but this is at the start of the Kashyyyk stages, and the weapon only appears in the last one, so felt the novel (which had the 1088 dated to that scene) was more accurate. Manoof (talk) 08:47, June 8, 2015 (UTC)
      • Well, that doesn't exactly reassure me. You'll need to double check this information. This objection stands until you can. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 18:58, June 8, 2015 (UTC)
        • I'll try to find the box with it and get the page number and quote for you this weekend. I can't promise anything however, since the new place needs some work, so I will try to find if someone else can check it for me. Manoof (talk) 08:45, June 9, 2015 (UTC)
        • Many thanks to Trip, the 1,088 days is confirmed for the scene, which is better known for when contact is lost with Sev. I believe the 1,070 days for that article may be also correct, as it would probably be the date given at the start of the kashyyyk mission. This is all according to the Order 66 novel of course. Manoof (talk) 09:47, June 15, 2015 (UTC)
          • So, explain this for me. The mission to Kashyyyk takes place over the course of many days? Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 21:41, June 18, 2015 (UTC)
            • According to the book, yes. The game... It FEELS like it's only a few hours, but due to breaks between the levels, there's no way to know for sure. Manoof (talk) 09:55, June 23, 2015 (UTC)
              • Ok. I want to explain for you now my reasoning behind this ongoing objection. When you wrote this reference note, I'm just assuming that you calculated the difference of 1,088 days based on our real-world 365-day calendar. You never specified in the reference note how exactly you arrived at 22 BBY based on 1,088 days after Geonosis, because you never established the length of the in-universe year. We know that the Galactic Standard Calendar is based on Coruscant's solar cycle, which lasts 368 days, so what you had originally ends up being correct but unsupported in the absence of such evidence. This needs to be explained in the reference note, which I'll probably end up doing for you. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 19:23, June 23, 2015 (UTC)
                • Ah ok, thanks heaps for that Tope, I'll keep it in mind in future! Manoof (talk) 09:00, June 24, 2015 (UTC)
Winterz
  • Cav already brought this up but since he didn't get to reply you, I'm gonna pick it up now. The Wookiees might've been affiliated with the Republic but putting them under Republic looks redundant and irrelevant. I honestly think you should just keep to 'Wookiees' in the affiliation as Cav first suggested.
    • Alright, removed. Manoof (talk) 05:52, April 19, 2015 (UTC)
  • The 'Wookiee Dual Launcher' was only mentioned as such in one source so you should probably replace the {{1stID}} for a simple (as Wookiee Dual Launcher). Winterz (talk) 03:23, April 19, 2015 (UTC)
    • Changed. Manoof (talk) 05:52, April 19, 2015 (UTC)

Comments

Approved as a Good article by AgriCorps 00:23, July 1, 2015 (UTC)