Star Wars Fanon:Good articles/Nominations

'''PLEASE NOTE: Due to the High Priests being very overwhelmed with nominations, we will not be accepting any more than five nominations for the coming rounds. This is subject to change in coming weeks.'''

Star Wars Fanon's Good articles The good articles of the wiki are articles that represent the norm of Star Wars Fanon. Articles that no longer meet the criteria can be proposed for improvement or removal at Star Wars Fanon:High Priests.

What makes a good article or what article should you nominate to be good? To answer that, we've prepared a list just in case someone should ask that, and it is as follows.

An article must&hellip;


 * 1) &hellip;be well written and detailed, with at least one link to an article on Star Wars Fanon.
 * 2) &hellip;be unbiased, non-point of view.
 * 3) &hellip;all images must be captioned.
 * 4) &hellip;be sourced with all available appearances (if articles that involve said article subject are on this wiki).
 * 5) &hellip;be correctly categorized.
 * 6) &hellip;not be tagged with improvement tags at the time of nomination, or any other templates.
 * 7) &hellip;have a sufficiently detailed introduction that can be used for the front page showcase box.
 * 8) &hellip;have a minimal amount of red links, and they must be insignificant red links. Important links must be filled, even if they are stubs.
 * 9) &hellip;have a complete, detailed "History" section, and a "Post mortem" section if the article is about a character that has died.
 * 10) &hellip;have a "Personality and traits" section for a character and "Charateristics" section if it is about a vehicle, class of vehicle etc.
 * 11) &hellip;have a "Behind the Scenes" section for any interesting facts about the character's creation, etc.

How to nominate:
 * 1) First, nominate an article you find to be worthy of Good Article status by putting it at the bottom of the list below. Add GAnom to any nominated article.
 * 2) Others will object to the nomination if they disagree that the article is good enough. They will then supply reasons for doing so and ways to improve the article (errors, style, organization, images, notability, sources).
 * 3) Supporters will adjust the article until the objectors are satisfied
 * 4) If there are already five nominees on the page, you may not nominate anymore. If more than five nominees are posted, anything after the fifth nominee will be removed.
 * 5) The GAnom banner should be placed at the top of all nominated articles.

How to vote:
 * 1) Remember, you can only vote if you meet the requirements of the voting policy.
 * 2) Before doing anything, be sure to read the article completely and keep a sharp eye out for mistakes
 * 3) Afterward, either support or object the article’s nomination
 * 4) Whether you support or object, please supply concrete reasons for doing so and how it can be improved. If you do not provide a valid reason for your support or opposition, such votes will be removed.
 * 5) As stated above, any objections will be looked upon by the nominator, supporters and anyone willing to improve the article. Action will be taken to please the objectors.

In addition, put the number sign, #, next to your name so the votes can be counted. Please sign your posts as well!

A small blue tick in the top right corner of an article's page indicates that the article is a good article.

Current Standings

 * 1) Prophecies of The Skywalker (8)
 * 2) Lorsanan'sondora, Order of Sovereignty (6)
 * 3) Jump droid (1)
 * 4) Beta-1 (-1)

=Nominations=

Approve
style="color:#990000">talk ]]) 20:24, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Another one of my many articles that is a culmination of two and a half years worth of work. I worked quite hard on this and I hope you give it the chance I feel it deserves. - Brandon Rhea 05:15, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Of course. Love it. I've been watching it be improved for the past week or so. Another gem. It's detailed, creative, and a great take on a rather unique subject. - Solus (Bird of Prey)  14:22, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Truely exceptional. The length is impressive, and the creativity as well. Who would have thought of prophecies? Right now, I'm thinking of epic battles, soldiers, and warships for my own fanon pieces. Cheers, Relen tless Recu sant 'o the Halopedia Team http://images.wikia.com/halofanon/images/a/ac/Fleet_Admiral.jpg TALK • SPEAK 17:07, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) One of Rhea's well written and nicely done articles. Well done, definitely GA. -- Victor  ([[User_talk:Squishy Vic|<span
 * 1) Per Solus and Vic. [[Image:NKsig.png|70px]] Jesus Freak NK says NK's 'mazin' articles [[Image:sabersmilygreend.jpg]] 01:46, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Also Per Above. I really want my article to win, but this is better as far as I'm concerned. [[Image:Sig02.JPG|125px]] Say it like it is... Or it was. 23:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Per Xepeyon. 21:41, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) My support is backed up by my comments on the HP page. --  JM  76  Ask   Archives  [[Image:Sabersmilyjm76.jpg|20px]] 21:20, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Comments

 * 1) Very good. I'd vote, but I can't. And is this the first week in months New CIS wasn't nominated? This is a surprise.

Approve

 * 1) Another one of my droid articles.--Darthtyler (talk) (HSM RKY)[[Image:TylerLogo.jpg|20px]] 06:34, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Well detailed and I like the concept.Troyb(CIS ShadowFeed) contribs[[Image:Troyb2.jpg|20px]] 21:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * He didn't create the concept, he just expanded upon an existing thing.-- N e o m e s s i a h  02:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) Great article. It has good details.21:44, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Disapprove

 * 1) See HP review. - Brandon Rhea 06:43, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Some sections are just too short, and two paragraphs seems kinda lacking for a legacy section. --  JM  76  Ask   Archives  [[Image:Sabersmilyjm76.jpg|20px]] 21:20, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Comments

 * I fixed everything.--Darthtyler (talk) (HSM RKY)[[Image:TylerLogo.jpg|20px]] 06:52, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Like I said on the HP page, it's still lacking in detail. - Brandon Rhea 06:58, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Approve

 * 1) I think it's GA quality: lengthy, detailed, and a decent read. [[Image:Sig02.JPG|125px]] Say it like it is... Or it was. 07:01, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Heck yes! You know how to write, man! Just reading the intro makes it feel GA.--Darthtyler (talk) (HSM RKY)[[Image:TylerLogo.jpg|20px]] 07:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Up to GA standards. -- Victor  ( talk ) 21:04, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Per above. - Brandon Rhea 23:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Per all above. 21:44, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Its lengthy, the pictures are good, the intro was quite impressive. --  JM  76  Ask   Archives  [[Image:Sabersmilyjm76.jpg|20px]] 21:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Disapprove
There should not be level 2 headers under history. ALL that stuff goes under history. (Such as "The Conquest Begins"; it should be ===, and then anything below that ====, etc.) -- Victor  ( talk ) 01:56, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Updated. There are no longer any level 2 headers under history. [[Image:Sig02.JPG|125px]] Say it like it is... Or it was. 03:00, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) There should be no years next to History. "History (3,956 BBY - 3,948 BBY)". -- Victor  ( talk ) 20:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That's contrary to what you told me earlier: " [...] secondly, you shouldn't have the years in the titles by themselves; it should be: ==History==, and then you put a title, for example "Beginning of the Order (20 ABY–30 ABY)." [[Image:Sig02.JPG|125px]] Say it like it is... Or it was. 20:54, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You just proved yourself wrong. Read exactly what I said; Is there a year next to History? No. -- Victor  ( talk ) 20:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * My mistake. I thought you meant next to the titles in general, and the "history" was just the example. I change that right quick. Fixed [[Image:Sig02.JPG|125px]] Say it like it is... Or it was. 20:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Comments

 * I'm going to stay neutral on this one for the time being. As you can see in my HP review of it, it's close enough to where I don't want to oppose it but still lacking in detail in certain spots enough to not support it. - Brandon Rhea 07:12, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Approve

 * 1) I worked hard on this one, especially with the hypothetical almost-sans-salt environment. - Solus (Bird of Prey)  14:19, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Definitely GA; it has lots of details and is very creative. -- Victor  ( talk ) 20:24, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Per Vic. [[Image:NKsig.png|70px]] Jesus Freak NK says NK's 'mazin' articles [[Image:sabersmilygreend.jpg]] 01:46, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Per above. - Brandon Rhea 23:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Per Vic. 21:44, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) The story itself is a great story, very detailed. I like how you used Greivous pics as well. Darthtyler Talk 21:11, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Very creative, there is one nasty little redlink, and its kinda a deadend article, but I'll let it go. I enjoyed reading this article. --  JM  76  Ask   Archives  [[Image:Sabersmilyjm76.jpg|20px]] 21:20, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * To mirror my question on the HP page, what do you mean by 'deadend'? And what redlink? I looked through the article and could find none. - Solus (Bird of Prey)  21:55, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * A deadend article means that it really doesn't lead anywhere due to a lack of links. However, I did not see a redlink. - Brandon Rhea 22:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, despite its massive size, there are a minimal amount of links. And yes there is a redlink, 33,000 BBY (go to the link and check what it links too). --  JM  76  Ask   Archives  [[Image:Sabersmilyjm76.jpg|20px]] 22:23, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) My best article. Better than last week.  15:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Its well detailed, has a good story.Troyb(CIS ShadowFeed) contribs[[Image:Troyb2.jpg|20px]] 21:56, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Good article. Very well-written. Darthtyler Talk 21:11, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) See HP review. This opposition vote is subject to change if the article is expanded. - Brandon Rhea 17:03, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Lacks details, way too brief. Has an unneeded header at the bottom ("succession box") and the picture of the "toy" is very messy (not the pic itself, but being on the left messes up the headers). -- Victor  ( talk ) 01:56, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Though its better, its still not up to stuff. It lacks detail and some of the last sections are stubby. --  JM  76  Ask   Archives  [[Image:Sabersmilyjm76.jpg|20px]] 21:20, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Comments
OK, I improved this article since the last nomination, but it's doing worse. 12:39, 2 July 2007 (UTC)