Talk:Star Destroyer

GA Review

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

I'm actually quite surprised that such a decent article was written on this kind of a topic. I do have some concerns, however, before I can pass this as a Good Article:

1. The lead must conform to WP:LEAD. Specifically, it must summarize all the major points/headings made the in the body of the article. As it stands, the lead is far too general and short for it to meet this criteria.
2. The caption for Eclipse.gif needs more context to explain the picture. From what movie/game/book was it taken from, for example? Just something to better contextualize the image.
3. All one-two sentence paragraphs must either be expanded or merged with surrounding paragraphs, as they cannot stand alone.
4. "Ironically, these former symbols of Imperial terror helped liberate the galaxy from the Empire's tyrannical grasp. Although the New Republic eventually upgrades its starfleet with newer ship types, the Imperial-class Star Destroyer remains in service well into the New Jedi Order era and fights during the Yuuzhan Vong war." (Depiction under ImperialcClass) Aside from requiring a citation, the first sentence does not sound very neutral or encyclopedic.
5. The third paragraph of "Depiction" under "Star Dreadnoughts" I believe requires more citations, as it seems that the citation at the end of the paragraph only covers the information from the Darksaber novel (although since I don't have the book, I may be wrong, so please let me know)
6. "Designed by Rendili StarDrive in the Star Wars universe, the Victory-class is 900 meters long and features fewer weapons and cargo than an Imperial Star Destroyer." (Other types) requires a citation. Same with "Star Destroyers used by the New Republic include the Republic-, Nebula-, and Defender-classes; Star Wars fiction describes these variations are part of the New Republic's New Class program." and "The Legacy comics introduce the Pellaeon-class Star Destroyers, named after Gilad Pellaeon." in the same section.
7. Reference #21 is not a reliable source for the material that it cites.

I will put the article on hold for a period of up to seven days, after which it may be failed without further notice. Cheers, CP 04:39, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll work on some of these suggestions. However, the paragraph about the Lusankya and other SSDs -- the result of merges from other articles -- I agree are uncited and not likely to be substantiated within seven days. Thanks, though, for the pointers for the rest of the article. --EEMIV (talk) 04:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, not enough has been addressed to merit Good Article status at the end of the hold, therefore I am failing the article at this time. If you feel that this review is in error, you may take it to good article reassessment. Thank you for your work thus far. Cheers, CP 06:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Super Star Destroyer VS Star Dreadnought

This maybe something I've just missed out on, but what is with this "Star Dreadnought" class? I've always heard the Executor refered to as a Super Star Destroyer. Assuming Wizards of the Coast thing is legit, shouldn't it still be refered that way, with the the Star Dreadnought bit simply mentioned in the article? Not looking to get on anyones case here, just looking for oppinions. --The Matrix Prime (talk) 01:45, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

The multiple reliable sources cited by the article substantiate the claim that "star dreadnought" is the correct label. --EEMIV (talk) 01:54, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• Oh I don't doubt that, it just seems to me that this presents a conundrum. If the Super Star Destroyer is NOT in fact a Star Destroyer, then obliviously it would seem that it does not belong on the Star Destroyer page any more than a TIE Fighter would. If it IS, then calling it a Star Dreadnought seems contradictory. I don't see a problem listing both names, it’s just it's title of part of the article doesn't fit the rest of the page. Maybe something like "Dreadnought Class Star Destroyer" would work better, but I guess it's not called that. The issue isn't really is it reliable sources, its is it a Star Destroyer (and should be referred mainly as that) or isn't another kind of vessel (similar but different) and does not belong on the page. That's what I'm asking about really. Sorry if I wasn't more clear. --The Matrix Prime (talk) 04:01, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

• It's here in part because, despite what the sources say, "Super Star Destroyer" is the more likely search term, and the article addresses the name discrepancy. Additionally, much of the merchandising using the "Super Star Destroyer" label. Probably Star Dreadnought lacks sufficient material as a stand-alone article. I'd be amenable to name change -- Imperial starships or somesuch -- if the discrepancy is stuck in your craw. --EEMIV (talk) 18:59, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

• Or the Star Dreadnought could simply be moved to an article like List of Star Wars spacecraft with a short redirect listed here for those who look under "Super Star Destroyer". However I feel compelled to point at the real-life version of this: military tanks. Quote: "In an effort to keep secret the real purpose of the early models when they were being shipped to France, the English labeled them tanks—for use as water tanks by Russia. Thus originated the name of tank for the new weapon." :End Quote. Even though they were to be "land ships" Wikipedia lists their article under "Tank" - this seems to me to be the same situation with the Super Star Destroyers. Like I said, I see no problem with the article mentioning they were to be called Star Dreadnoughts, it just seems the cover name caught on more, just like the tank, and so that's how the article should refer to it in the majority of it. What do you think?--The Matrix Prime (talk) 02:18, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• I think it's fine how it is. If you disagree, feel free to ask for input from WP:RFC --EEMIV (talk) 02:41, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• I would think that keeping the articles combined is fine... But realistically I have never heard of them being called Dreadnoughts. I have only ever heard them called Super Star Destroyers in the films and games. I checked Starwars.com's database, they only mention Super Star Destroyer, no other descriptions are given. http://starwars.com/databank/starship/superstardestroyer/index.html. Lordmichael21 (talk) 17:45, 4 November 2008 (UTC)Michael

• Sigh, this is something that comes up every so often. Star Dreadnought is not the "correct" term any more than Super Star Destroyer is. The vessel is a fictional object and therefore only exists as defined in the fictional works in which it appears. For most of the Star Wars canon in the 1980s, 1990s, and early 2000s, it was called a Super Star Destroyer, including in the movies themselves ("concentrate all fire on that super star destroyer"). Later authors decided to rename it as a Star Dreadnought. Both naming conventions are correct in the sense that they appear in reliable sources, but as pointed out above, Super Star Destroyer is the far more common term amongst those not slavishly devoted to every last detail of Star Wars canon. The only way to list it therefore, is under the more common Super Star Destroyer term with an explanation on how a different term is used in some of the more recent media. Unfortunately, since this is a relatively obscure subject, it is in large part the more slavish devotees that hang around here, so any attempt to go with that method would only end in edit warring. This is why EEMIV, one of the most sensible editors of Star Wars pages on wikipedia, has enacted the current compromise where the Star Dreadnought name is used but we still keep the information on the Star Destroyer page. I think it is best to keep it that way. Indrian (talk) 06:46, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for the support, Indrian. Lordmichael, please look more thoroughly at the link you provided (and cited in the article). Both the Expanded Universe and the (more significant) Behind the Scenes sections refer to the "Star Dreadnought". Most compelling to me is this line (keep in mind, published by franchise-holder Lucasfilm): "Though the name "Super Star Destroyer" is spoken in the films, it is now revealed that the correct nomenclature to describe the ship type is 'Star Dreadnought'" --EEMIV (talk) 13:30, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

• I didn't even go that far down on the starwars site. Clearly, I should have. If we were to keep dreadnaught naming, I would like to see a little more mentioned about the name change. I was just a little suprised... the last time I had looked up the article (probably over a year ago) it was its own separate article, and I understand the merger. But the name, that was the first that I had heard about that. But thanks for the responses to my comment!Lordmichael21 (talk) 14:41, 11 November 2008 (UTC)