Talk:Star Destroyer

message: :GA review (see here for criteria)
#It is reasonably well written.
#:a (prose):  b (MoS): 
#:: 
#It is factually accurate and verifiable.
#:a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
#:: 
#It is broad in its coverage.
#:a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
#:: 
#It follows the neutral point of view policy.
#:Fair representation without bias: 
#:: 
#It is stable.
#:No edit wars etc.: 
#:: 
#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): 
#:: 
#Overall: 
#:Pass/Fail: 
#:: </div>
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:
#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.
#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.
#All one-two sentence paragraphs must either be expanded or merged with surrounding paragraphs, as they cannot stand alone.
#"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.
#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)
#"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.
#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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  GA Review 

message: Someone with better english skills could add the famous Vengeance SSD, which is the capital ship of the Imperial Taskforce in X-wing vs Tie Fighter: Balance of Power computer game. It was, after all, the capital ship of the fleet which accounted the famed Avenger Squad.-PHWeberbauer  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.66.190.199 (talk) 00:29, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why not insert the Vengeance as one of the SSD? 

message: Info about the Venator-class Star Destroyer from 'revenge of the sith' and the clone wars should be added to this as it isnt part of the EU like alot of types and it plays an important role in the rise of the galatic empire and there change of distroyer. 84.64.14.35 (talk) 10:05, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The Venator class is mentioned in the "Other types" section. --EEMIV (talk) 12:47, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Venator-class Star Destroyer 

message: Don't they appear at the end of Episode II? Strange that ep3 is mentioned, but not ep2. 81.182.236.48 (talk) 21:15, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There are no SDs in AotC - those are Acclamator-class assault ships, which have a similar design. Captain Seafort (talk) 18:28, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

text: Star_Destroyer#Other_types - second paragraph. --EEMIV (talk) 21:28, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Appearances 

message: I dont know if its worth mentioning, but in my hometown (Aarhus, Denmark) our theatre looks pretty much like a Star Destroyer frome above, take a look http://maps.google.dk/?ie=UTF8&ll=56.155806,10.21095&spn=0.001141,0.002044&t=h&z=19  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.3.141.121 (talk) 07:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Building look-alike 

message: I was cleaning up a few facts on the original Star Wars name for these ships (Imperial cruisers) and noticed this article is way to WP:INUNIVERSE. "Imperial class" who came up with that term? "Kuat Drive Yards" where did that piece of fiction first show up? For that mater the "Depiction" sections are very short on what fictional work each fiction claim/description comes from. Those sections need to be written from outside the universe. 70.211.109.194 (talk) 06:40, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Needs in-universe cleanup

message: Nearly 12 years after the above comment.  I came to this article expecting to read more on the creative development, model-making, special photographic effects, etc, as well as information about how the original movie Star Destroyers informed designs for subsequent movies; and that information to be in a real-world sequence, not an in-universe timeline.  Let me tell you something:  No Star Destroyer was built at "Kuat Drive Yards", they were built in California. Darcyj (talk) 06:46, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Very very in-universe

message: In Episode IV, 46 minutes 20 seconds, Han Solo refers to outrunning "Imperial Starships" that he calls "Corellian Ships;" my impression is that he is referring to Star Destroyers. Does anyone agree, and if so maybe it should be added as an alternate name?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.207.112.130 (talk) 03:48, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Han is a Corellian, so (in-universe) it might be a chauvinistic comment by him, the way Chekhov in Star Trek claims everything as a Russian accomplishment. In the real world, it is probably a left-over from earlier drafts (much like the famous hidden fortress comment). 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:E1A6:5844:FF62:19AA (talk) 09:49, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Corellian Ships" 

message: User:EEMIV, you reverted a change needed to this article to allow it to be disambiguated from SSD (disambiguation). If you or the other editors are convinced that SSD is not a legitimate acronym for Super Star Destroyer, I have no problem. If someone disagrees with you, they are welcome to add this back in and also add the following back to the SSD DAB page.
* Super Star Destroyer, a massive capital ship in the fictional Star Wars universe
Happy editing. § Music Sorter § (talk) 05:49, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of SSD 

message: For those mindful of this and related articles, FYI:  and User_talk:Akshay_b_patil#Eclipse. This editor appears interested in the subject but might need some support for appropriate contributions. --EEMIV (talk) 15:10, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  FYI 

message: Added Eclipse class dreadnought as my article on Eclipse class dreadnought was rejected by administration.Akshay b patil (talk) 16:00, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Eclipse class dreadnought

message: The current caption of this image is as follows: 
Two Imperial Star Destroyers and a pair of TIE fighters pursue the Millennium Falcon
There are at least five TIE fighters chasing the Millennium Falcon in that image. 
What do we think about changing "... a pair of..." to "several"? KConWiki (talk) 04:20, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Not having heard anything to the contrary, I am going to edit that caption. KConWiki (talk) 02:30, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Number of TIE fighters in picture

message: Not sure if anybody knows, but the image presented for the Victory class is a fan made image, it comes from a fan made game mod for the game X-wing alliance. So it does not represent what it officially looks like. There are probably plenty of official, high quality images of a Victory class lying around on the internet (the star wars wiki has some) that should be used instead. 91.179.151.28 (talk) 13:52, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, it's been a week and since nobody objected, I'm going to remove it. 91.177.121.63 (talk) 18:26, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Victory-class image 

message: Having previously decimated this article in summer 2007,  chopping it down from ~39K, I figured worthwhile to swing at it again. I'm not quite done with edits and tweaks, but am going to remove the in-use template in invitation of further revision or feedback. The previous article structure was still tilted too far in-universe and I think this is an improvement. The article needs a bit of anchoring in terms of the ship's import, and divorcing its own notability from the iconic opening scene. Speaking of: some image support of those two opening cuts (or even an animation of NFCC-able of the tiny ship zipping by and the masssssive pursuing agent) would be handy, methinks). --EEMIV (talk) 19:53, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  ~Decadely eviceration 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Star Destroyer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081205002010/http://www.starwars.com/databank/starship/republicattackcruiser/index.html to http://www.starwars.com/databank/starship/republicattackcruiser/index.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080303143619/http://cargobay.starwars.com/webapps/cargobay/item-detail/9121 to http://cargobay.starwars.com/webapps/cargobay/item-detail/9121
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:51, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: The infobox is a bess. It looks like it's trying to be exhaustive, but that's nigh impossible given the variety of Star Destroyers. Really, most of the fields could read "Various." I'm going to take a swing at weeding it down to something digestable and usable. --EEMIV (talk) 22:37, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox 

message: Hello, I'm Aledownload, one of the major contributors to this page, and I wanted to propose one thing: if we could write a section modeled after List of Star Trek Starfleet starships with the names (for example "Executor"), classes ("Executor"), models ("Star Dreadnought/Super Star Destroyer"), continuites ("Both canon and Legends" for the Executor) of every Destroyer mentioned. If someone would like to support this idea, please make me kmow.
--Aledownload (talk) 15:22, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Fellow major contributor here, and alas also at the list of Star Trek ships (at least many years ago). I wholeheartedly oppose this idea. The Star Trek list is crufty and trivial; an External link to e.g. Wookieepedia's category for Star Destroyers or List of... article would be more appropriate. --EEMIV (talk) 02:11, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: A proposal

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:07, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: I'm pretty sure both Imperial I and II are all painted whitish grey. Imperial I doesn't seem white most of the time, still grey (even though lighting can make it look so).
Cheers Loqiical (talk) 00:34, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Studio models are generally darker, bluer and grimier than the audience experiences them. And, yes, this is down to studio lighting as you say. In-universe the craft have a certain livery, for sure, but in the real-world we have (a) props that have a certain colour, and (b) the impression the fictional craft made on the audience. Both, or neither, are valid answers to the question what the colour "is". 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:E1A6:5844:FF62:19AA (talk) 09:55, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Imperial I is white?

message: The wedge design was copied from a book cover by Chris Foss - should this be added? 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:E1A6:5844:FF62:19AA (talk) 09:46, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: There doesn't seem to be any real consensus that this really was the case.  Also, whilst sharing a basic wedgie shape, there isn't that much similarity between the two designs.  There is some discussion that Foss thought about it, but all sources that mention it are carefully worded to avoid any outright accusation.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 10:10, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chris Foss controversy