Brickipedia:Articles for Rating/Class 1/Archive

Please note: Nominations which were closed prior to June 17, 2011 have not yet been archived.

The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was unsuccessful 8795 Lord Vladek Nominated by: Jeyo Lord VladekTalk The Forge Nomination comments: The article is quite complete. It has a detailed description, a background, a notes section and a gallery. Vote score: ±0, Technical Check: Currently OK Support Looks good. I think that it meets the criteria easily. Agent Charge 02:10, August 21, 2012 (UTC) Object Technical MoS Check (QCG members only) Comments Apparently this isn't a valid reason for opposing, but it doesn't feel like any higher quality than class 2. --Berrybrick (Talk) 02:37, July 14, 2012 (UTC) Per BB. -Cligra Join the redlink war! Per Berrybrick, but as we're no longer allowed to use the "l" word... NightblazeSaber 06:24, July 16, 2012 (UTC) * Per BerryBrick. Charge talk Devoted editor of Brickipedia. 04:23, July 19, 2012 (UTC) I've added a LEGO.com description and expanded the page a bit. How is it now? Jeyo Lord VladekTalk The Forge Not much different. If there was a LEGO.com description available, it should have been there before. --Berrybrick (Talk) 12:27, July 19, 2012 (UTC) Okay...how about now? Jeyo Lord VladekTalk The Forge 'grew and grew' doesn't sound very encyclopedic. In the title, it says that he is a 'Lord', but in the description it calls him the 'Scorpion Knight'. The game cards weren't included in all copies. Jag 02:38, August 30, 2012 (UTC)

The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was unsuccessful 9467 Ghost Train Nominated by: - Power Jim Talk Blogz08:56, 7/31/2012 08:56, July 31, 2012 (UTC) Nomination comments: Recently, I've worked on this article a fair bit and I've aimed to get this article to meet the C1 requirements. To me it seems to comply being MoS compliment and I've tried filling the article out to the best of my ability. Vote score: -2, Technical Check: Currently Not OK Support I'll support it as I'm sure Jim will tweak it up to the quality, as it is a pretty good article. -- Czech 11:11, August 23, 2012 (UTC) Support User:IMFAgent1 Object LEGO should be capitalized, most of the play features aren't mentioned in the description, the notes have speculation, the background should be more in depth (it was featured in a LEGO magazine comic), and the tone could be more neutral. Saying things like, "at the very front of the train," and, "it seem more like a tyre," among other statements don't read with an NPV to me. Oh, and apparently the gallery images need captions. --Berrybrick (Talk) 14:51, July 31, 2012 (UTC) Sources need a cleanup- some should be removed or changed to a better name, some need to be moved to external links. Minifigure gallery = 1 entry per minifigure, not one image of three minifigures. NightblazeSaber 03:43, August 20, 2012 (UTC) To BB and NBS, I fixed the few minor problems you reported and it should now definitely be fit for C1 status. - Power Jim Talk Blogz11:59, 8/23/2012 11:59, August 23, 2012 (UTC) This is late, but you fixed a few of them. I only looked over the article quickly, but I still noticed the short background and speculative notes. --Berrybrick (Talk) 13:11, September 4, 2012 (UTC) Technical MoS Check (QCG members only) Comments I actually am pretty neutral, but since we can't use the "it's too small/short" word, I'll just say I think it should be more in-depth. --Czech 09:11, July 31, 2012 (UTC) Yes... I have made the description more in-depth since the nomination. - Power Jim Talk Blogz09:34, 7/31/2012 09:34, July 31, 2012 (UTC)

The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was unsuccessful Aurra Sing Nominated by: LSC - Stealth.... 07:49, July 31, 2012 (UTC) Nomination comments: For a minifigure that appears in two sets it complies with the MoS, has a description, background, variant descriptions, appearances, and a gallery. Vote score: ±0, Technical Check: Not OK Support Object Technical MoS Check (QCG members only) Uses US spelling (eg, gray) Needs a bit of a heading cleanup ("In the Video Games" should be used for VG variants) No description of VG variant's abilities (especially sniper rifle) Uncaptioned gallery, which also contains mostly uneeded images Could be worth mentioning she has back printing Should be a link to the blaster pistol page in the infobox Comma between years required in infobox, line breaks between sets Background section seems to be a bit confused- description is for about LEGO stuff, background is solely for character information. Some of those notes uneeded, or should be merged into the description Some unecessary external links This looks like a lot, but most of them are pretty minor. I'd be happy to help out if you wanted me too. This is very close to a solid C2, not sure if it has the potential to make C1, but I'm just a harsh rater. NightblazeSaber 08:09, July 31, 2012 (UTC) Ah, ok. I'll get to work immediately, thanks. :) StealthNinja Contact [[Special:Editcount/LSCStealthNinja|Special:Editcount/LSCStealthNinja Edits]] Is it good now? I did everything you said. StealthNinja Contact [[Special:Editcount/LSCStealthNinja|Special:Editcount/LSCStealthNinja Edits]] Can someone check this, and see if it's OK? I did everything NBS asked. StealthNinja Contact [[Special:Editcount/LSCStealthNinja|Special:Editcount/LSCStealthNinja Edits]] PLEASE CHECK THIS!!!! SOMEBODY!!! StealthNinja Contact [[Special:Editcount/LSCStealthNinja|Special:Editcount/LSCStealthNinja Edits]] C2 given. As I said, I think it's a high-end C2, but I just don't think it's C1 potential (it's not you, it's just that it's only about a single minifigure). Wouldn't oppose it being a c1 though, but can't support either, sorry. NightblazeSaber 03:51, August 20, 2012 (UTC) Ah, it's ok. I understand. Can I save this (not report it until it starts) for the F12 Star Wars Celebration? ;) StealthNinja Contact [[Special:Editcount/LSCStealthNinja|Special:Editcount/LSCStealthNinja Edits]] Comments

The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was successful Lightning McQueen Nominated by: Charge talk Devoted editor of Brickipedia. 05:53, July 10, 2012 (UTC) Nomination comments: The article meets the Class 1 criteria, has a detailed description of all the 11 variants, and a good background description. It's also currently the 75 longest page (not that that makes it better or anything…). Update. It's now the 78th longest page. Vote score: +3, Technical Check: Currently OK Support Looks great! Great work Charge! klagoername that user 14:19, July 10, 2012 (UTC) Jag 04:12, July 26, 2012 (UTC) Looks good. Darth henry The Dojo Turtles! 20:59, September 1, 2012 (UTC) Object Technical MoS Check (QCG members only) Comments I probably can't oppose with this, but I don't like the layout. We have a bunch, too many really, images with the description, but when we get to the background it's a textwall. --Berrybrick (Talk) 13:23, July 11, 2012 (UTC) So what do you propose I do? Add pictures to the background from the movie? Charge talk Devoted editor of Brickipedia. 05:34, July 12, 2012 (UTC) Maybe just a picture of Mater or the Tokyo race or something, but I started to read the description and I couldn't. All of the pictures were too distracting and I had to stop. So if anything, remove some from the description. --Berrybrick (Talk) 14:26, July 12, 2012 (UTC) Do you think the ones showing the differences or the variation is better? Charge talk Devoted editor of Brickipedia. 23:45, July 13, 2012 (UTC) I'm not supporting or opposing until someone (maybe me) goes over it for grammar, but I fixed the textwall and imageclutter. -Cligra Join the redlink war! Thanks. I was going to do something like that. Charge talk Devoted editor of Brickipedia. 05:48, July 16, 2012 (UTC) I've done a grammar check, and it seems good. I've changed the bad grammar that I found as well. Charge talk Devoted editor of Brickipedia. 06:01, July 16, 2012 (UTC) It looks close to me (from a glance) and I can see a lot of work has been put into this, but I am confused by the names- eg, the minifig gallery uses different names to the subheadings in the description, and to the variants in the appearances section. Also for the System variants, the minifig gallery lists five variants, but the appearances section clearly has eight different names. NightblazeSaber 06:27, July 16, 2012 (UTC) That's because the only differences of some of the variants is the colour of some interior bricks. They'd still be the same exterior photo for each one (although we could use interior photos instead). Charge talk Devoted editor of Brickipedia. 02:24, July 17, 2012 (UTC) I've changed it now. All of the variants that are the same on the outside are listed with all the variants that look the same on the outside. Charge talk Devoted editor of Brickipedia. 02:27, July 17, 2012 (UTC)

The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was successful Part 54174 Nominated by: Jeyo Lord VladekTalk The Forge Nomination comments: Well, I created the page with an infobox as complete as possible, added several pictures of the front, back and more of the part, added an extremely detailed description written very nicely (if I say so myself myself), a complete appearances section and an external links section. It is ready! Vote score: ±0, Technical Check: Currently OK Support I lean slightly to the support for this article. It fits the criteria very well and I can't think of anything else to add to it. Agent Charge 02:18, August 21, 2012 (UTC) Hey, if the penguin keychain article has c1, this has to have c1. --Czech 03:11, August 21, 2012 (UTC) Very detailed, has a nice description. Per CP. XD StealthNinja Contact [[Special:Editcount/LSCStealthNinja|Special:Editcount/LSCStealthNinja Edits]] Weak support I almost feel as though something is missing from it but I can't pin-point what... SKP4472 Talk [[Special:Editcount/SKP4472|Special:Editcount/SKP4472 Edits!]] Welcome to Click a Brick! 20:36, August 23, 2012 (UTC) Object Technical MoS Check (QCG members only) Comments I don't really have much of an opinion, but I don't really think it's at C1 level, although it is certainly complete. -Cligra Join the redlink war! Per Cligra. But since we're not allowed to oppose for this reason.... :/ NightblazeSaber 00:40, August 22, 2012 (UTC) This should be closed by now. Jeyo Lord VladekTalk The Forge Closed, done. Jag 03:52, September 1, 2012 (UTC)

The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was successful 7680 The Twilight Nominated by: SKP4472 Talk [[Special:Editcount/SKP4472|Special:Editcount/SKP4472 Edits!]] Devoted Editor of Brickipedia 09:33, May 19, 2012 (UTC) Nomination comments: Meets the Class 1/Good Article criteria with a lengthy description and is MoS compliant. :) Vote score: +6, Technical Check: OK Support Complete and detailed. StealthNinja Contact [[Special:Editcount/LSCStealthNinja|Special:Editcount/LSCStealthNinja Edits]] Good article. --Czech 10:22, May 19, 2012 (UTC) Good and complete. Darth henry Talk Pain sig! - Burning eyes! 16:21, May 19, 2012 (UTC) NightblazeSaber 09:02, May 20, 2012 (UTC) ajr 00:05, May 25, 2012 (UTC) Don't see why not. - 00:07, May 25, 2012 (UTC) Object # "Parts" section doesn't really make sense- I have no idea what that section means. "Later it was redesigned as the B-Wings"- source? And if it was the Twilight itself wasn't redesigned, the basis of the B-wings may have come from G9 riggers. First note could be cleaned up a bit, and made note of that it was TRU exclusive in the US, it may not have been elsewhere. Other than that, support. NightblazeSaber 09:40, May 19, 2012 (UTC) Technical MoS Check (QCG members only) * Images need to be captioned as per BP:MOS * Price at least need DE and AU pricing- it's a recent set and that information should be around somewhere NightblazeSaber 09:40, May 19, 2012 (UTC) Sorry about the images, I wasn't aware that such rule had been implemented in the MoS. Nonetheless I've rectified it and will remember that for future reference. As for prices, I've checked numerous sources such as Brickset, Lugnet, Peeron and Brick Wars Sets for prices but I didn't get anything for DE or AU. :( SKP4472 Talk [[Special:Editcount/SKP4472|Special:Editcount/SKP4472 Edits!]] Devoted Editor of Brickipedia 10:04, May 19, 2012 (UTC) No worries :) And I'll see if I can find anything for the prices, they should be somewhere :S NightblazeSaber 10:21, May 19, 2012 (UTC) Found the prices for DE and AU on a review by Svelte at Eurobricks here. :) SKP4472 Talk [[Special:Editcount/SKP4472|Special:Editcount/SKP4472 Edits!]] Devoted Editor of Brickipedia 16:34, May 19, 2012 (UTC) All mistakes that were stated have now been corrected. :) SKP4472 Talk [[Special:Editcount/SKP4472|Special:Editcount/SKP4472 Edits!]] Devoted Editor of Brickipedia 07:53, May 20, 2012 (UTC) Nice find with the prices- too bad archive.org doesn't do anything useful anymore, it used to be much easier to find prices. NightblazeSaber 09:02, May 20, 2012 (UTC) Or you could have asked the Aussie Price Master. :P --Czech 09:46, May 23, 2012 (UTC) Comments

The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was successful 10186 General Grievous Nominated by: BF2 Talk 15:24, May 21, 2012 (UTC) Nomination comments: Vote score: +3, Technical Check: Currently OK Support -Cligra Join the redlink war! Looks good. ajr 00:07, May 25, 2012 (UTC) SKP4472 Talk [[Special:Editcount/SKP4472|Special:Editcount/SKP4472 Edits!]] Welcome to Click a Brick! 10:21, June 6, 2012 (UTC) Nothing wrong with it. Darth henry Talk Pain sig! - Burning eyes! 15:07, June 6, 2012 (UTC) Seems fair enough to me. - Power Jim Talk Blogz00:45, 6/8/2012 00:45, June 8, 2012 (UTC) Object Technical MoS Check (QCG members only) Comments Fills out every requirement, has more than one original paragraph, should meet requirements. I'm not sure where I can find the prices for other countries. BF2 Talk 15:24, May 21, 2012 (UTC)

The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was unsuccessful 6933 Spectral Starguider Nominated by: BF2 Talk 14:25, May 24, 2012 (UTC) Nomination comments: Vote score: ±0, Technical Check: Currently OK Support Object Technical MoS Check (QCG members only) Fills requirements BF2 Talk 14:25, May 24, 2012 (UTC) Comments

The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was unsuccessful 6981 Aerial Intruder Nominated by: BF2 Talk 14:36, May 24, 2012 (UTC) Nomination comments: Vote score: ±0, Technical Check: Currently OK Support Object It's okay, but I feel the description can be in a bit more detail. - Power Jim Talk Blogz00:50, 6/8/2012 00:50, June 8, 2012 (UTC) Could you please explain what you mean? BF2 Talk 12:41, June 8, 2012 (UTC) I just feel it can be expanded more in depth. Examples would be explaining more on the two smaller vehicles and possibly putting them under a sub-heading eg. "Smaller ground vehicle" and in edition it could use a background (although the Blacktron story-line is somewhat primitive and poorly-detailed) I feel it is still possible to add at least a statement for background info. If you can do this, you have my support. - Power Jim Talk Blogz00:47, 6/10/2012 00:47, June 10, 2012 (UTC) I don't think we do separate subheaders for minor things like that, and there is no storyline as far as I know - I could say "it's the largest ship in the Blacktron armada" or something like that but it's not really information and not worth writing. As discussed in a forum, there is a point where description is essentially putting the instructions into written format. BF2 Talk 00:50, June 10, 2012 (UTC) I would like a bit more meat on the bone. klagoername that user 17:31, July 13, 2012 (UTC) Technical MoS Check (QCG members only) Complies Comments

The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was successful 6958 Android Base Nominated by: BF2 Talk 15:19, May 24, 2012 (UTC) Nomination comments: Vote score: +4, Technical Check: Currently OK Support Support as long as part articles are made for the two red links in the notes section. :) SKP4472 Talk [[Special:Editcount/SKP4472|Special:Editcount/SKP4472 Edits!]] Devoted Editor of Brickipedia 15:35, May 24, 2012 (UTC) Did not notice that. Thanks. BF2 Talk 16:26, May 24, 2012 (UTC) Looks pretty good. -Cligra Join the redlink war! Nothing more could be added. Darth henry Talk Pain sig! - Burning eyes! 17:27, May 24, 2012 (UTC) ajr 00:15, May 25, 2012 (UTC) It's good, no spelling mistakes, no details are missing. - Power Jim Talk Blogz00:53, 6/8/2012 00:53, June 8, 2012 (UTC) Object Technical MoS Check (QCG members only) Complies BF2 Talk 15:19, May 24, 2012 (UTC) Made some general fixes but I can't see anything that needs to be corrected. SKP4472 Talk [[Special:Editcount/SKP4472|Special:Editcount/SKP4472 Edits!]] Devoted Editor of Brickipedia 15:35, May 24, 2012 (UTC) Comments

The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was unsuccessful 6982 Explorien Starship Nominated by: BF2 Talk 16:36, May 24, 2012 (UTC) Nomination comments: Vote score: ±0, Technical Check: Currently OK Support Good article. --Czech 23:25, May 24, 2012 (UTC) Object When nominated the price template wasn't implemented and there was no Bricklink link (not sure if this is necessary for C2 but still counts). I've since made a few adjustments but it lacks a Background section. I'm pretty sure some kind of storyline exists, mainly given from posters and adverts, so a bit of that implemented would help. Also some more pics would be nice, and the description section needs to be split up to cover each vehicle. I'll support when done. - 23:53, May 24, 2012 (UTC) As far as I know, we don't need BL links at the moment and I'm not sure when it will be MOS. As for storyline, it would be in storybooks which cost money. BF2 Talk 23:57, May 24, 2012 (UTC) The article is good, but I do think it needs to have at least some background. :/ --Berrybrick (Talk) 10:24, June 6, 2012 (UTC) Tell me if you find some, because I won't be able to buy old books for this purpose until I leave for college (parents would think it's weird...). BF2 Talk 12:26, June 6, 2012 (UTC) I'll see if I can. I don't know where to look though. :/ --Berrybrick (Talk) 18:51, June 6, 2012 (UTC) What KoN said. klagoername that user 17:31, July 13, 2012 (UTC) Technical MoS Check (QCG members only) Comments

The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was successful Sandtrooper Nominated by: SKP4472 Talk [[Special:Editcount/SKP4472|Special:Editcount/SKP4472 Edits!]] Welcome to Click a Brick! 14:35, June 10, 2012 (UTC) Nomination comments: This article meets C1 criteria and features a lengthy description of all six variants (if you count the squad leader and sergeant as different). Vote score: ±1, Technical Check: Currently OK Support It seems absolutely MOS compliment to me. - Power Jim Talk Blogz03:47, 6/25/2012 03:47, June 25, 2012 (UTC) It looks good. (Good work SKP!) Darth henry The Dojo Turtles! 23:16, July 6, 2012 (UTC) klagoername that user 14:29, July 12, 2012 (UTC) Object Technical MoS Check (QCG members only) Comments

The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was unsuccessful Part 32569 Nominated by: 11:26, March 30, 2012 (UTC) Nomination comments: Must be the first time somebody's nominated a part article for C1. This definitely goes beyond the C2 requirement of part articles, so giving it a C1 status seems appropriate to me. Vote score: 0, Technical Check: Support Very good article. --Czech 11:27, March 30, 2012 (UTC) --Berrybrick (Talk) 21:14, April 1, 2012 (UTC) Has all the variants and has lots of good information. Darth henry Talk Pain sig! - Burning eyes! 06:37, April 4, 2012 (UTC) Object Technical MoS Check (QCG members only) Comments Great part article (c2 given), but I don't really think it has the potential to be a c1. Unless we rate part articles differently... neutral. NightblazeSaber 07:22, April 4, 2012 (UTC)

The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was unsuccessful Johnny Thunder Nominated by: -Cligra Join the redlink war! Nomination comments: Nothing really wrong with it that I can spot... Vote score: -1, Technical Check: Not OK Support Seems to have a rather good description, background and images. Everything seems to meet the minimum requirements and just recently has became a C2 article, so I don't see why it shouldn't be a C1 article. - Power Jim Talk Blogz03:46, 4/4/2012 Object I guess I just think the description's a bit short for a minfig with five variants if it's going to be called a GA NightblazeSaber 02:09, March 29, 2012 (UTC) I'm opposing mainly for speculation and US spelling. The speculating being the Josh Thunder and Johnny Thunder, we do not need these in articles. --Czech 10:49, April 4, 2012 (UTC) Technical MoS Check (QCG members only) Uses US spelling NightblazeSaber 02:09, March 29, 2012 (UTC) Understood, but the variants aren't all that different. It's mostly just recolors. --Berrybrick (Talk) 10:23, March 29, 2012 (UTC) Comments

The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was unsuccessful General Grievous Nominated by: Czech 05:21, March 26, 2012 (UTC) Nomination comments: Seems good. Vote score: -1, Technical Check: Not OK Support Object Description way too short for GA material on a minifigure with two very different variants. NightblazeSaber 05:25, March 26, 2012 (UTC) Technical MoS Check (QCG members only) sections do not comply to MoS NightblazeSaber 05:25, March 26, 2012 (UTC) Comments

The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was Successful Robin Nominated by: klagoername that user 13:45, March 25, 2012 (UTC) Nomination comments: Although I can't find myself bringing it to featured I think this article has enough quality to be atleast Class 1. Vote score: +4, Technical Check: Currently OK Support I'd definitely support if for Featured, as well. -Cligra Join the redlink war! I don't know about featured, but class 1 for sure. --Berrybrick (Talk) 17:27, March 25, 2012 (UTC) Definitely NightblazeSaber 04:59, March 26, 2012 (UTC) It is very detailed. Its almost like I had the minifig in my hands. Darth henry Talk Pain sig! - Burning eyes! 03:03, March 29, 2012 (UTC) Object Technical MoS Check (QCG members only) Comments

The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was unsuccessful 4918 Mini Flyers Nominated by: Skdhjf(Talk!) 02:29, March 24, 2012 (UTC) Nomination comments: I wrote the whole description and fixed up a few stuff. Skdhjf(Talk!) 02:29, March 24, 2012 (UTC) Vote score: ±0, Technical Check: Currently OK Support Pretty nice! -Cligra Join the redlink war! If the penguin can. The plane can. --Czech 07:40, March 24, 2012 (UTC) Object Technical MoS Check (QCG members only) Comments Looks nice, definitely at least c2, but images need captioning. NightblazeSaber 02:43, March 24, 2012 (UTC) Alright, I will add content/clean it up when I ever get the time to. Skdhjf(Talk!) 02:47, March 24, 2012 (UTC) Done - Ok, I fixed a few things and added more content to the page. Could you change your decision? :D Skdhjf(Talk!) 03:12, March 24, 2012 (UTC) I didn't know I made a decision :P Sorry, I really have a hard time telling between c2 and c1's I'd say it's borderline so I'll stay neutral for now. Don't think it'd get much better than what it is though NightblazeSaber 03:53, March 24, 2012 (UTC) You didn't make a decision XD You made a half-decision. :P Also, you can't write much more about a small set like this, can't you? I just want to know why this got a C1 though. :/ (Sorry if I am being an annoying gnat.) Skdhjf(Talk!) 03:58, March 24, 2012 (UTC) Well, if you look at the history, I actually opposed that to begin with, then changed to neutral so it's not like I'm not being inconsistent- it just depends on who votes for it :) NightblazeSaber 04:01, March 24, 2012 (UTC) Alright, I see. :/ I guess I can live with the fact that it's a Class 2. :0 Skdhjf(Talk!) 04:03, March 24, 2012 (UTC)

The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was Successful 2507 Fire Temple Nominated by: --Berrybrick (Talk) 02:07, March 24, 2012 (UTC) Nomination comments: Seems pretty good, but it might need a little clean-up, I tend to miss my own mistakes. --Berrybrick (Talk) 02:07, March 24, 2012 (UTC) Vote score: ±0, Technical Check: Currently OK Support Definitely. NightblazeSaber 02:42, March 24, 2012 (UTC) Nice! -Cligra Join the redlink war! Nice! BTW You can withdraw my request for this se to be a FA. Darth henry Talk Pain sig! - Burning eyes! 03:00, March 29, 2012 (UTC) Object Technical MoS Check (QCG members only) May need a spelling cleanup, eg story->storey (sorry, working on something else right now, don't have time to go through it) NightblazeSaber 02:42, March 24, 2012 (UTC) I put it through Microsoft Office Word and fixed what it picked up. I didn't see the "storey" so I assume you fixed that. --Berrybrick (Talk) 22:38, March 24, 2012 (UTC) Fixed spelling, I'm assuming Spinjitzu and Skulkin are meant to have capitals? In some places they did, but not in others. Background needs to be changed to past tense as per BP:MOS. NightblazeSaber 05:29, March 26, 2012 (UTC) Done. --Berrybrick (Talk) 18:57, March 26, 2012 (UTC) Comments

The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was unsuccessful Bohrok Nominated by: -Cligra Join the redlink war! Nomination comments: I fee that length-wise this is ready to be featured, but I'm not so sure about the quality of the article itself, hence nominating it here. Vote score: ±0, Technical Check: Currently OK Support I do agree with KoN though. --Berrybrick (Talk) 21:14, March 25, 2012 (UTC) Object Technical MoS Check (QCG members only) Comments Great page, though I think a lot of the information there belongs on the Bohrok Va and Bohrok-Kal pages instead. Also some info about the combiners would be nice. - 13:24, March 10, 2012 (UTC) There is a bit of info on the Kaita, but I don't know much about them. Feel free to add some, though. -Cligra Join the redlink war!

The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was unsuccessful 7708 Uplink Nominated by: Jag 03:18, March 6, 2012 (UTC) Nomination comments: Seems to comply with the requirements, please inform me of changes necessary (or do it yourself). Jag 03:18, March 6, 2012 (UTC) Vote score: ±1, Technical Check: Currently OK Support I've made the necessary grammar fixes, and I'm now all for it. -Cligra Join the redlink war! Object Technical MoS Check (QCG members only) * See Techical check in the first set nomination on this page NightblazeSaber 13:13, March 10, 2012 (UTC) Comments

The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was unsuccessful 7706 Mobile Defense Tank Nominated by: Jag 03:18, March 6, 2012 (UTC) Nomination comments: Seems to comply with the requirements, please inform me of changes necessary (or do it yourself). Jag 03:18, March 6, 2012 (UTC) Vote score: ±0, Technical Check: Currently OK Support Object Technical MoS Check (QCG members only) * See Techical check in the first set nomination on this page NightblazeSaber 13:13, March 10, 2012 (UTC) Comments

The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was unsuccessful 7705 Gate Assault Nominated by: Jag 03:18, March 6, 2012 (UTC) Nomination comments: Seems to comply with the requirements, please inform me of changes necessary (or do it yourself). Jag 03:18, March 6, 2012 (UTC) Vote score: ±0, Technical Check: Currently OK Support Object Technical MoS Check (QCG members only) * See Techical check in the first set nomination on this page NightblazeSaber 13:13, March 10, 2012 (UTC) Comments

The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was unsuccessful 7704 Sonic Phantom Nominated by: Jag 03:18, March 6, 2012 (UTC) Nomination comments: Seems to comply with the requirements, please inform me of changes necessary (or do it yourself). Jag 03:18, March 6, 2012 (UTC) Vote score: ±0, Technical Check: Currently OK Support Object Technical MoS Check (QCG members only) * Should be using {{Price}} in the infobox since it was voted through. I know it's only a recent thing, but I don't any new noms should go through without it since it affects the MoS. I would do it myself, but I want to see how usable the template is- if I'm the only person who can use it, there's not much point in having it. NightblazeSaber 13:13, March 10, 2012 (UTC) Comments

The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was successful Imperial Officer Nominated by: NightblazeSaber 02:56, March 6, 2012 (UTC) Nomination comments: Not sure whether it's good enough, just thought I'd see anyway. Vote score: +2, Technical Check: Currently OK Support It's pretty good. Not great, but pretty good. -Cligra Join the redlink war! I would probably add the variant images to the description section but otherwise really good. SKP4472 Talk [[Special:Editcount/SKP4472|Special:Editcount/SKP4472 Edits!]] Devoted Editor of Brickipedia 20:40, March 12, 2012 (UTC) It was looking a bit plain, added some pics in NightblazeSaber 00:33, March 13, 2012 (UTC) Jag 04:39, March 26, 2012 (UTC) Object Technical MoS Check (QCG members only) Comments

The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was successful 10224 Town Hall Nominated by: klagoername that user 13:28, March 9, 2012 (UTC) Nomination comments: Alot of the credit for this article goes to Cligra. Vote score: +3, Technical Check: Currently OK Support Apart from technical reasons below (and I don't really like supporting active WIPs), it looks great. NightblazeSaber 23:06, March 9, 2012 (UTC)- I was hoping for Featured, but hey, not complaining (also, per NHL about the WIP).-Cligra Join the redlink war! Article looks good, has a lot of good info, overall a very worthy article. -- EJ Talk Blog Contributions Customs 16:20, March 25, 2012 (UTC) Object Technical MoS Check (QCG members only) Prices need to go into a {{Price}} template. Spelling: Minifigures/Bride section- "tor", I think it's meant to be top, Minifigures/Mayor- "modifacations"->modificationsNightblazeSaber 23:06, March 9, 2012 (UTC) See Techical check in the first set nomination on this page NightblazeSaber 13:13, March 10, 2012 (UTC) Australian price required. NightblazeSaber 23:26, March 10, 2012 (UTC) I added the Australian price. •myk 06:58, March 24, 2012 (UTC) Struck :) NightblazeSaber 07:02, March 24, 2012 (UTC) Comments The categories have been added a million times, and is the link to bricktuts needed? They report things second-hand just like most of our stuff and just seems like pointless advertising to me. NightblazeSaber 23:06, March 9, 2012 (UTC) Fixed. klagoername that user 16:00, March 10, 2012 (UTC) (Note to self- fix problem with comma in pieces field in infobox NightblazeSaber 23:26, March 10, 2012 (UTC)) Should this be closed now? klagoername that user 13:37, March 25, 2012 (UTC) Closes on March 30 (3 weeks from start date), unless a vote count of +3 is achieved. NightblazeSaber 13:39, March 25, 2012 (UTC)

The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was successful 852987 Penguin Key Chain Nominated by: -Cligra Join the redlink war! Nomination comments: It is a superb article for a key chain. It is considerably longer than any other such articles, and contains a phenomenal amount of content for so small a set. Also, if you think it's too short, please note that it is actually notably longer then several of our other Class One articles. Vote score: +2, Technical Check: Currently OK Support As Cligra and I did heaps of work on it, I'm giving it my vote :P Czech 20:48, March 12, 2012 (UTC) Notes needed a small fix, but it's okay now. --Berrybrick (Talk) 20:50, March 12, 2012 (UTC) Seems like a great article! klagoername that user 23:54, March 16, 2012 (UTC) Neutral NightblazeSaber 00:21, March 13, 2012 (UTC) Object # Sorry, I just don't think it has the potential to be a GA. Definitely the best keychain article I've come across though NightblazeSaber 22:39, March 12, 2012 (UTC) I think this vote is rather invalid, as I mentioned in the nomination comments. -Cligra Join the redlink war! Technical MoS Check (QCG members only) Comments Don't know where you got your prices from, but NZ, AU and CA prices were wrong. NightblazeSaber 22:39, March 12, 2012 (UTC) I think I'd know what it is in my currency :/ --Czech 04:27, March 13, 2012 (UTC) ???? It's back to AU $6.99 now (I was sure it was 7.99 when I checked it before. Either the price changed or I've gone mad. CA and NZ were still wrong, unless the price changes again) NightblazeSaber 04:58, March 13, 2012 (UTC) It is 6.99, from LEGO.com and my own purchase aswell. I got it in 2010 at 6.99. --Czech 05:05, March 13, 2012 (UTC)

The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was successful Kai Nominated by: -Cligra Join the redlink war! Nomination comments: Seems about that level. It's certainly better than any of the other Ninjago minifigure's pages. Vote score: +2, Technical Check: Currently OK Support Nice job cligra. Not a misspelled or gramatically incorrect sentance! Father and Son May the force be with you. 18:42, March 1, 2012 (UTC) Now I feel like you've jinxed me... -Cligra Join the redlink war! What do you mean? I found "ninja" mispelt "ninaj" twice... :P --Berrybrick (Talk) 20:21, March 1, 2012 (UTC) Ah, be the sentences weren't misspelled.... -Cligra Join the redlink war! Only thing is, it's going to have to be pretty well maintained, every week most Ninjago pages get hit with bad-quality edits coinciding with a new episode. NightblazeSaber 00:26, March 13, 2012 (UTC) It's good. --Czech 06:58, March 19, 2012 (UTC) Object Technical MoS Check (QCG members only) Comments Is there a new description from LEGO.com for the ZX or Kendo suit? I would check myself, but the Ninjago mini-site is really glitchy for me. --Berrybrick (Talk) 20:21, March 1, 2012 (UTC) As far as I can tell, there's only ZX, which is the one I added. -Cligra Join the redlink war! Why is the NRG obviously a prototype? NightblazeSaber 00:26, March 13, 2012 (UTC)

The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was Failure 4195 Queen Anne's Revenge Nominated by:-Cligra Join the redlink war! Nomination comments: Just look at it! Vote score: +2, Technical Check: Currently OK Support My only problem is the CGImages in the minifigures section. --Berrybrick (Talk) 23:58, February 17, 2012 (UTC) I think those photos are fine. klagoername that user 00:11, February 19, 2012 (UTC) ajr 00:17, February 23, 2012 (UTC) Object Per Berrybrick above, but also not a fan of the "real Queen Anne's Revenge"- it's based on the Pirates set (which has a very small background), I think of it as "two degrees of separation"- LEGO set->Pirates ship->real-life ship - and we should only really go to "one degree", talk about only what the set's based on (sorry if that doesn't make any sense). "(Images from the 2011 New York Toy Fair are courtesy of fbtb)" should be removed (can source each image in the file page, doesn't need to go on the set page, and not every image there is from FBTB), and some if not all of the sources seem a bit unneeded (especially Wikipedia) NightblazeSaber 22:18, February 22, 2012 (UTC) I've removed the Wikipedia source, and the images thing... However, I can't expand the background any more, as that's all I remember from the film (and I actually rather like the "real Queen Anne's Revenge" section, although I do see your point).-Cligra Join the redlink war! --Czech 22:20, February 22, 2012 (UTC) ( Struck as per rule 2.1- reason for opposition needs to be supplied. NightblazeSaber 23:36, February 22, 2012 (UTC)) Technical MoS Check (QCG members only) Canadian pricing included, no Australian pricing included. NightblazeSaber 22:18, February 22, 2012 (UTC) Fixed. Should be technically OK. ajr 00:17, February 23, 2012 (UTC) Comments I've done a major rewrite here, and fixed a lot of spelling and grammar issues. I've removed the historical background - this set is based off of a ship in a movie, which has no connection to the actual ship except in name. I've also cleaned up some image clutter. ajr 00:17, February 23, 2012 (UTC) Hmm... I'll have to clean up my act in the future! -Cligra Join the redlink war! The article wasn't terrible - from a quick look over it seemed great. However, a more detailed analysis picked out quite a few issues. ajr 01:40, February 23, 2012 (UTC) Note: The CGI minifigs have been removed from the section by someone. There is one left in the middle of the article, but it is an interesting view and isn't taking anything away from it. ajr 15:02, February 28, 2012 (UTC) Does that mean I can strike NHL's vote fully? :P -Cligra Join the redlink war! Seems more misleading to have a mixture than to have all of them CG to me :S NightblazeSaber 23:04, February 29, 2012 (UTC)

The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was Failure 10184 Town Plan Nominated by: klagoername that user Nomination comments: Yes I am still working on it but it seems good enough for C1. Vote score: +1, Technical Check: Currently OK Support TBH it looks and reads really well. ajr 02:09, February 16, 2012 (UTC) Yep :) --Czech 02:22, February 21, 2012 (UTC) Object Not really. It is complete, but it doesn't really have the level of quality we associate with Class One articles. -Cligra Join the redlink war! Per my anaylasis below :P --Berrybrick (Talk) 23:01, February 12, 2012 (UTC) Technical MoS Check (QCG members only) Comments Seems a bit repetative. I'm only in the beginning of the description and I'm already tired of hearing "This set…." I think the lead section could also be tweaked a bit. --Berrybrick (Talk) 22:54, February 12, 2012 (UTC) I've now read to the movie theatre. I don't think we need to hear that it's from 1950, because you've said the set is based on a 1950s town two or three times already. --Berrybrick (Talk) 22:55, February 12, 2012 (UTC) Should be Town Hall, not LEGO Town Hall :P --Berrybrick (Talk) 22:57, February 12, 2012 (UTC) Gas Station is almost fine, just scrap the suggestion of being Italian. Red, white, and green are the Octan colorscheme which is more likely. --Berrybrick (Talk) 22:58, February 12, 2012 (UTC) Minifigures and fountain are okay, vehicles have the same "1950s" problem. --Berrybrick (Talk) 22:59, February 12, 2012 (UTC) Children ages 12 and older? How about people ages 12 and older? :P --Berrybrick (Talk) 23:00, February 12, 2012 (UTC) If you are taking the time to make all of these suggestions, why not... fix them? :/ ajr 23:38, February 22, 2012 (UTC) I started to, but then I got a headache. :P --Berrybrick (Talk) 23:50, February 22, 2012 (UTC) I know what you mean. I took my own advice to heart and am rewriting 4195_Queen_Anne's_Revenge - such terrible grammar D:!!! ajr 23:52, February 22, 2012 (UTC) @BB I fixed a lot of stuff you mentioned above. klagoername that user 13:11, February 29, 2012 (UTC)

The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was Failure The Four Golden Weapons Nominated by: SuperSpyX Tell me your secrets You cannot hide 23:47, February 8, 2012 (UTC) Nomination comments: I made this page and put lots of info and descriptions. I think it is Good Article level, possibly even FA level. Vote score: -5, Technical Check: Currently OK Support Object I've made it C2, but I think that's it for now. -Cligra Join the redlink war! Per above. klagoername that user 03:32, February 9, 2012 (UTC) Could be expanded more I think. There is almost no background. --Berrybrick (Talk) 12:13, February 9, 2012 (UTC) Per BB, but also links to the individual weapons' part pages are needed too. Also more detail in release history. - 18:30, February 9, 2012 (UTC) Only the sword and shurikens would have part pages. The scythe and nunchucks are made of three-four pieces --Berrybrick (Talk) 19:52, February 9, 2012 (UTC) Not great looking, and while it has a lot it is still missing some crucial info. ajr 02:15, February 16, 2012 (UTC) Technical MoS Check (QCG members only) Comments

The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was Successful 3315 Olivia's House Nominated by: --Berrybrick (Talk) 21:30, February 27, 2012 (UTC) Nomination comments: Surprised nobody else has tried to get this amazing set to even class three before. :P --Berrybrick (Talk) Vote score: +6, Technical Check: Currently OK Support Truly shocking. -Cligra Join the redlink war! ...I'm stunned :P The only thing I could suggest would maybe be a short background (a sentence or two), saying this is the house of Olivia, one of the five main characters, and her parents. NightblazeSaber 22:56, February 27, 2012 (UTC) I'll do that. I almost thought of writing a background section by paraphrasing the LEGO.com description and saying that they can have barbecues and parties. :P --Berrybrick (Talk) Grammar check positive :P ajr 23:00, February 27, 2012 (UTC) Spelling too (after I fixed it :D) NightblazeSaber 23:02, February 27, 2012 (UTC) Me likey!--Czech 09:31, February 28, 2012 (UTC) You can put your name down on the WIP again BB if you want.  :) klagoername that user 14:01, February 28, 2012 (UTC) Just read it, it is a really good article. Father and Son May the force be with you. 14:02, February 28, 2012 (UTC) Object Technical MoS Check (QCG members only) Comments Any suggestions before I start working on it to get it to Featured status? --Berrybrick (Talk) 12:24, February 28, 2012 (UTC) To be honest, when I voted, I thought it was at FAN, then I saw it was only GAN after I saved it. My only suggestion would be above- a nice story about barbecues as you said ;) NightblazeSaber 13:47, February 28, 2012 (UTC) Seriously? I'll add something along those lines though. Based on the LEGO.com description of course. :P --Berrybrick (Talk) 19:58, February 29, 2012 (UTC)

The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was Successful 7709 Sentai Fortress Nominated by: Cligra 01:03, January 23, 2012 (UTC) Nomination comments: I think it might be FA quality now, but I'm not sure, so nominating it here first. Vote score: +2, Technical Check: Currently OK Support I think It's a perfect C1. Not sure about FA Though. --Czech 01:04, January 23, 2012 (UTC) NightblazeSaber 01:27, January 23, 2012 (UTC) Jag 22:16, January 23, 2012 (UTC) --Berrybrick (Talk) 17:54, January 29, 2012 (UTC) Object Technical MoS Check (QCG members only) Comments

The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was Successful 7700 Stealth Hunter Nominated by: Jag 22:16, January 23, 2012 (UTC) Nomination comments: Just in case it doesn't pass for FA. Vote score: +1, Technical Check: Currently OK Support definitely NightblazeSaber 22:44, January 23, 2012 (UTC) --Berrybrick (Talk) 23:18, January 27, 2012 (UTC) -Cligra Join the redlink war! Object Technical MoS Check (QCG members only) Comments

The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was Successful 6860 The Batcave Nominated by:  Zaersk  Talk  Contribs  (MOC) (Blog) 02:16, January 6, 2012 (UTC) Nomination comments: Seems to me like a Good Article. Vote score: +1, Technical Check: Currently OK Support --Berrybrick (Talk) 20:38, January 6, 2012 (UTC) -Cligra Join the redlink war! NightblazeSaber 22:22, January 11, 2012 (UTC) --Czech 08:57, January 17, 2012 (UTC) Object Technical MoS Check (QCG members only) Comments Looks good, don't have time to go through it right now though NightblazeSaber 02:18, January 6, 2012 (UTC) I'll go through it, but I might be biased because I wrote most of it...--Berrybrick (Talk) 20:27, January 6, 2012 (UTC) Seems good. --Berrybrick (Talk) 20:38, January 6, 2012 (UTC)

The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was unsuccessful 7702 Thunder Fury Nominated by: Jag 00:18, November 8, 2011 (UTC) Nomination comments: Seems to meet the criteria. Just nominating this one now for an trial. Vote score: -0.5, Technical Check: Currently OK Support Object Weak Oppose It looks good, I just think the background section needs expanding. - nxt It does say to keep the background section short though. Jag 23:36, November 9, 2011 (UTC) Neutral I'm pretty even.....--User:Crazed Penguin/SigBlue 09:28, November 18, 2011 (UTC) Definiely C2, just not sure about C1 NightblazeSaber 23:43, November 18, 2011 (UTC) It complies with all the requirements though - what else would you suggest? Jag 00:54, November 19, 2011 (UTC) Technical MoS Check (QCG members only) Comments It complies with all the GA requirements. Jag 00:54, November 19, 2011 (UTC)

The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was unsuccessful Plo Koon Nominated by:--Da Penguin with da Epic Skillz! Crazed Penguin talk 07:45, October 14, 2011 (UTC) Nomination comments: Great article. I love reading it. Vote score: -4, Technical Check: Currently OK Support Object NightblazeSaber 07:58, October 14, 2011 (UTC) Needs a proper check through for grammar and suchlike. - nxt Per Others--Berrybrick (Talk)

The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was successful Batman (Minifigure) Nominated by:--Munchman14 20:15, September 20, 2011 (UTC) Nomination comments: A detailed article about everybody's favorite superhero! Vote score: +2, Technical Check: Currently OK Support Might need some work on the videogame section, but I can help with that (as I'm the one who has done it on most of the other Batman minifigure articles) (Still supported) --Berrybrick (Talk) 20:58, September 20, 2011 (UTC) Could use a little bit more work, but I'd call it good anyways IMO. The only things that need to be changed are just minor overall look things, and I assume that they will be attended to shortly. ajr 00:37, September 22, 2011 (UTC) Jag 18:20, October 14, 2011 (UTC) Object Comments Neutral I like the overall look of this page, but I'm just wondering if it could do with just a bit more expansion and describe the figure instead of just listing the parts for each variant. Also, I don't know if it's just me, but image in the 2012 comic suit section pushes the Videogame appearance heading to the right, I just think having that as a clearer heading on the left would make it a bit easier to see that the description is broken into phsyical variants and VG variants. Also, just wondering, are those accessories all for the physcial variant (as it should be as per the MoS)? I just can't remember ever seeing a Batarang in LEGO before (but I don't know much about the original Batman line). But at any rate, this page is definitely a huge improvment over what it was not so long ago NightblazeSaber 23:59, September 20, 2011 (UTC) I've removed the picture and did some work in the areas you suggested --Berrybrick (Talk) 21:42, September 21, 2011 (UTC) 1. I'll work on the pictures and expansion soon in the coming hours. And 2. Yes, there were actually 2 kinds of batarangs released.--Munchman14 01:47, September 21, 2011 (UTC) Do you know what the sets were where he came with a batarang? I'm not asking for a source or anything, I'm just curious to see what they looked like :) NightblazeSaber 05:41, September 21, 2011 (UTC) Batarang and Grapple Batarang. All of those accessories appear in the sets, I made sure to weed out the videogame accessories myself. --Berrybrick (Talk) 11:02, September 21, 2011 (UTC) And they came in EVERY set that included the Batman minifigure! (exept the $10 ones)--Munchman14 00:04, September 22, 2011 (UTC)

The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was successful The Joker Nominated by:--Munchman14 00:16, September 16, 2011 (UTC) Nomination comments: It seems like a thorough article about the clown prince of crime. Vote score: +6, Technical Check: Currently OK Support Supported but Subject to Change, if others have sufficent objections --Berrybrick (Talk) 00:22, September 16, 2011 (UTC) Looks good, I'll help fix the typos when I get time. ajr 00:31, September 16, 2011 (UTC) NightblazeSaber 01:36, September 17, 2011 (UTC) Seems good. -Cligra Join the redlink war! Looks alright. Jag 04:39, September 17, 2011 (UTC) SKP4472 Talk [[Special:Editcount/SKP4472|Special:Editcount/SKP4472 Edits!]] Devoted Editor of Brickipedia 20:20, September 20, 2011 (UTC) Object # For what's listed in the MoS check, and also an alternate image of the Topical Joker without a watermark would be great. Other than that, I would probably support. NightblazeSaber 00:24, September 16, 2011 (UTC) Technical MoS Check (BOR/CCG members only) * Appears to have a fair few typos, other than that, no problems with it. NightblazeSaber 00:24, September 16, 2011 (UTC) I've fixed what typos I could find, but somebody else should probably double check. --Berrybrick (Talk) 19:19, September 16, 2011 (UTC) Comments Would it be unacceptable to remove the watermark? I would think so, but just checking. --Berrybrick (Talk) 00:29, September 16, 2011 (UTC) Watermark=Gone.--Munchman14 01:37, September 16, 2011 (UTC) Yes I know, I'm the one who removed it :P --Berrybrick (Talk) 19:21, September 16, 2011 (UTC) Just a question before I support- is the "laughing gas ice cream" one accessory or is it meant to be "laughing gas", "ice cream"? NightblazeSaber 23:46, September 16, 2011 (UTC) Should be separate, I've split them. ajr 23:52, September 16, 2011 (UTC) I think it's the same thing, here's part of the description for 7888- When The Joker hatches a wickedly funny scheme to sell Joker-gas ice cream to the citizens of Gotham City, it's up to Batman to put an end to the laughing lunatic's practical jokes -- and to put The Joker behind bars once and for all! --Berrybrick (Talk) 00:54, September 17, 2011 (UTC) You could be right, I didn't see that O_o - reverted. ajr 00:57, September 17, 2011 (UTC) Not a big deal anyway, not that gas on its own is generally an accessory. --Berrybrick (Talk) 01:00, September 17, 2011 (UTC) There is laghing gas ice cream and then there's also Smile Bombs (They contain laughing gas).--Munchman14 04:35, September 17, 2011 (UTC) Well, that's a bomb, and it was used by his helicopter, not the Joker directly --Berrybrick (Talk) 14:53, September 17, 2011 (UTC) Week's over :) --Berrybrick (Talk) 01:01, September 24, 2011 (UTC)

The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was successful Mummy (Microfigure) Nominated by: - nxt 17:17, July 11, 2011 (UTC) Nomination comments: This is a great article on a subject quite hard to write about. It fulfills the Good article criteria, and is definately a good article. Vote score: +3, Technical Check: Currently OK Support -Cligra Join the redlink war! •myk 22:24, July 21, 2011 (UTC) Sure. -NBP 16:58, August 12, 2011 (UTC) Object The notes section contains incorrect spelling (even, not evan). The notes header uses a lowercase N. A couple of times, the word It's is used incorrectly (Its, not It's). Images need to be embedded within the article text. Also, a red link is present.Needs images embedded. (Due to me being inactive for a short time, a QCG member may strike this oppose if the fixes called for are met)•myk 00:38, July 18, 2011 (UTC) I've scrapped the notes section (don't know who put that in), and sorted out the its. And red links isn't really a reason to oppose. I will try to find some images. - nxt 19:31, July 18, 2011 (UTC) I've fixed the red link. •myk 18:53, July 19, 2011 (UTC) Embedded an image. - nxt 09:13, July 21, 2011 (UTC) Technical MoS Check (BOR/CCG members only) Comments

The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was successful 10195 Republic Dropship with AT-OT Walker Nominated by: tradeylouish (talk

The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was unsuccessful Part 973px562 Nominated by: -Cligra Join the redlink war! Nomination comments: OK, this article may not be as good quality as other Class 1 articles, but it is DEFINITELY one of the best (possibly THE best) part articles on Brickipedia. Vote score: -1, Technical Check: Not OK Support # Oh Yes!!! - nxt 18:12, June 30, 2011 (UTC) It's good. Why must we say that part articles can't be good. The article looks good to me. We really need to start judging part articles as part articles here, rather than as other articles. ajr 02:36, July 2, 2011 (UTC) Per Ajr, I love this article. It is a great highlight of the site, especially being a Part page. -NBP 12:09, July 11, 2011 (UTC) --R2-D2 (user) 12:32, July 16, 2011 (UTC) Oppose Em, nearly all of the information is in-correct. SKP4472 Talk [[Special:Editcount/SKP4472|Special:Editcount/SKP4472 Edits!]] -4661 days till my One Year Brick-iversary! 16:46, June 30, 2011 (UTC) Despite having incorrect information (assuming from above comment), I just don't think parts pages have the potential to become GA's. NightblazeSaber 23:41, June 30, 2011 (UTC) Per above. Skdhjf(Talk!) 04:26, July 1, 2011 (UTC) Technical MoS Check (BOR/CCG members only) Loaded with incorrect information (see above and below) NightblazeSaber 05:14, July 2, 2011 (UTC) Comments On second thoughts, it needs a thorough check through. After a bit of work, it could be good to go though. - nxt 18:57, June 30, 2011 (UTC) Per UltrasonicNXT. I don't really know if the information is untrue or not. :P -Cligra Join the redlink war! Well, when it says that Shock troopers from the prequel trilogy were preceded by Snowtroopers in the Classic trilogy, I don't think it's too hard to see the inaccuracy... I would change it, but can't right now... Byzantium 3000![[Special:Editcount/Byzantium 3000|Special:Editcount/Byzantium 3000 edits!]] 04:26, July 2, 2011 (UTC) @Ajr- if you actually look at the content, you'll see that most of the info is incorrect. This part appears only in 7671 and 7655. And what does "This part say it's next and most probably last..." even mean? (and the speculation of "probably"). Also, Class 2 status for this is once again contested. NightblazeSaber 05:12, July 2, 2011 (UTC) Vote to remove nomination (QCG only) Infobox. Lead section. Physical Appearance section. These three sections are the only sections which have correct information. The rest is incorrect information (a significant percentage of it is not even remotely right). I would actually go so far to say that this is the worst page I've come across on the wiki (excl. vandalism, etc). Stub articles may be short, but at least a minimum of 50% of the content is true. I don't want to edit this now since it's an ongoing nom, but as soon as the nom concludes, I'll definitely be removing the false information as soon as I can. NightblazeSaber 05:12, July 2, 2011 (UTC) I have corrected the article as much as possible. I have also left it as a Class 4 Article for now. SKP4472 Talk [[Special:Editcount/SKP4472|Special:Editcount/SKP4472 Edits!]] -4661 days till my One Year Brick-iversary! 14:44, July 4, 2011 (UTC)

The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was successful 7030 Squad Car Nominated by: •myk 21:33, June 28, 2011 (UTC) Nomination comments: The article is Class 1 status, and believe the description is filled out to its max. I know the has article just acquired Class 2- I think its Class 1. Vote score: +4, Technical Check: Currently OK Support My goodness, this article is excellent! How could anyone write so much about a tiny car... ajr 04:22, June 29, 2011 (UTC) Wow Mykheh. I wish this could be done to all the Class 4 articles.:) Great work! I think this article has enough content for a GA status. After all...It is a small set.:P Skdhjf(Talk!) 16:43, June 29, 2011 (UTC) Per Ajr. I've never seen so much writing in a description for a set this small! SKP4472 Talk [[Special:Editcount/SKP4472|Special:Editcount/SKP4472 Edits!]] Devoted Editor of Brickipedia 16:45, June 29, 2011 (UTC) -Cligra Join the redlink war! Object # See below NightblazeSaber 00:15, June 29, 2011 (UTC) # Sorry, needs a thorough check through. Will do that then re-consider. - nxt 17:59, June 29, 2011 (UTC) Technical MoS Check (BOR/CCG members only) Comments Wow, such as long description for such a small set- well done :) Basically, I just think it could do with a language cleanup- just reading the lead, "costing only (subjective) US $4"... "This set started a new number: 7030 (not sure what that means)." Also, the parts mentioned, eg "the white 1 x 2 - 1 x 4 bracket" could do with being linked to the respective part page, just so it can be 100% clear on what the parts being described are. Was also lacking an official quote (since been fixed, and US price corrected). And is there any chance of getting AU$/€ prices? I know they're pretty hard to find for older sets though. I am currently working on it. •myk 01:23, June 29, 2011 (UTC) I only found the AU$ on Ebay, but I don't think that was the selling price (AU $5.99) when it was released (I didn't put the price in the article). All other problems I fixed. •myk 02:21, June 29, 2011 (UTC) No, ebay isn't the way to go since they don't necessarily sell at the RRP. Don't worry if you can't find it- as long as there's a serious attempt at looking for the prices, it doesn't matter too much. Could also do with checking the tense, eg It contains a police car and a police officer. The set consisted of fifty-one... (note: descriptions should be present tense, background sections in past). Also, with the 7030 numbers, maybe use 703x? (that looks a bit weird too though, ignore that if you want) NightblazeSaber 04:20, June 29, 2011 (UTC) Okay, it's fixed. •myk 04:43, June 29, 2011 (UTC)

3829 Fire Nation Ship

The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was unsuccessful Nominated by: Cligra 18:14, April 14, 2011 (UTC) Nomination comments: It strikes me as an excellent article in all ways. Vote score: +2, Technical Check: Currently OK Support I see no reason why not. -NBP 17:12, June 1, 2011 (UTC) BobaFett Talk MOCPages Group (Click) 17:47, June 16, 2011 (UTC) Object Technical MoS Check (QCG members only) Comments Need to embed some of the images in the text, rather than just the gallery. - nxt 09:01, April 18, 2011 (UTC) Well, that has been done. Now what? -Cligra Join the redlink war!

55000 LEGO Universe

The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was successful Nominated by: ShermanTheMythran Nomination comments: The article is a good length, has an abundance of pictures, is informative, and complies with the MoS. Vote score: +7, Technical Check: Currently OK Support Definately. - nxt 16:13, May 19, 2011 (UTC)] Yeah. -Cligra Join the redlink war! Clone gunner commander jedi talk 19:19, May 23, 2011 (UTC) (Only members of the Quality Check Group may vote.)(Since when? -NHL) Byzantium 3000![[Special:Editcount/Byzantium 3000|Special:Editcount/Byzantium 3000 edits!]] 03:11, May 24, 2011 (UTC) Per others lol -NBP 17:12, June 1, 2011 (UTC) Looks C1 level. Ajraddatz (talk) 18:09, June 1, 2011 (UTC) Per Ajr. SKP4472 Talk [[Special:Editcount/SKP4472|Special:Editcount/SKP4472 Edits!]] Devoted Editor of Brickipedia 19:10, June 5, 2011 (UTC) Object Technical MoS Check (QCG members only) Comments

10188 Death Star

The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was successful Nominated by: •myk 17:41, June 12, 2011 (UTC) Nomination comments: I feel this page meets the requirements: Complies with the MOS completely, info boxes filed out as best as possible, lead section describing basic info, one long original paragraph describing the subject in greater detail, one additional paragraphs describing further information of aspects or peculiarities of the subject (the rooms section), extrnal links section. Vote score: +4, Technical Check: Currently OK Support I like it :3 ajr 17:27, June 13, 2011 (UTC) Per Ajr. SKP4472 Talk [[Special:Editcount/SKP4472|Special:Editcount/SKP4472 Edits!]] Devoted Editor of Brickipedia 19:00, June 14, 2011 (UTC) I'm a bit miffed that you think the description that took me hours to make is a bit too short. Everything complies. BobaFett Talk MOCPages Group (Click) Good enough for GA. NightblazeSaber 00:30, June 18, 2011 (UTC) Object Technical MoS Check (BOR/CCG members only) Comments Oooh, it's marginal. - nxt 18:32, June 12, 2011 (UTC) It could go either way. -Cligra Join the redlink war! Neutral for now, leaning towards oppose. For such a huge set, it could have a much longer description. And some more in-text images of the individual rooms really are required. It also could have some mistakes in there- I spotted one at a glance being that it's from the A New Hope line- don't think the DS throne room was in Ep4. Wording can also be a little awkward at times- The first Death Star was built by the Emperor Palpatine and Grand Moff Tarkin. Wow, who new Palpatine and Tarkin were such great construction workers? NightblazeSaber 23:25, June 12, 2011 (UTC) I have fixed those grammatical problems now. •myk 04:30, June 13, 2011 (UTC) Images are now embedded. •myk 23:39, June 13, 2011 (UTC) Looking much better. Also half the parts under "Notes" have links, half don't. NightblazeSaber 00:10, June 14, 2011 (UTC) Fixed. •myk 00:32, June 14, 2011 (UTC) NHL: True, maybe I should spend time in improving the article before nominating it again (I'm constantly learning). :) •myk 04:42, June 13, 2011 (UTC) @NHL lol :D haha :-) Jag 04:45, June 13, 2011 (UTC) Anyone else find the features bit hard to read due to a massive text wall? Tried to paragraph it out a bit, but it didn't mesh too well with the images. @BF2: I'm not saying it's bad at all, but the description's like the size of 6195 Neptune Discovery Lab / Aqua Dome 7 (which you wrote), and that set's nearly 8 times smaller, that's all. But yeah good enough for GA I guess NightblazeSaber 03:27, June 17, 2011 (UTC) Yeah, I understood that-I think that it could be larger if it were an FA, but it's a GA nomination so it seems fine. BobaFett Talk MOCPages Group (Click) Tried to format it out a bit better, don't know if it's much of an improvement. Also can someone caption the last image in the gallery? I don't know what to say about it :S Thanks, NightblazeSaber 00:30, June 18, 2011 (UTC) Also, the statement "The first Death Star was built by the Galactic Empire" isn't completely correct- the first two years of construction on the Death Star was undertaken by Geonosians for the Separatists. NightblazeSaber 00:34, June 18, 2011 (UTC) Okay I fixed that. •myk 23:08, June 19, 2011 (UTC)

The following section is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. The result was All nominations failed 7573 Battle of Alamut Nominated by: Agent Swipe(talk) 19:56, August 16, 2011 (UTC) Nomination comments: Vote score: ±0, Technical Check: Currently OK Support Object Technical MoS Check (BOR/CCG members only) Comments Might be worthy. However, just after a quick glance through, it didn't seem all that well written to me. -Cligra Join the redlink war! Poison Ivy Nominated by: Berrybrick talk -- "That's Mr. Commander Sergeant to you. 23:56, August 27, 2011 (UTC) Nomination comments:Ajr rated this class 2 and said that somebody should nomintate the article for good status, and as the one who did much of the work on this article, I guess that I also have the honor of nominating it. Vote score: -3, Technical Check: Currently OK Support Object Content's definitely there, but it's a bit all over the place isn't it? (Minifigure gallery in the middle of the article, etc) Ordering definitely doesn't comply with the MoS (unless the MoS has drastically changed) NightblazeSaber 04:43, September 9, 2011 (UTC) The information's too unorganized.--Munchman14 18:23, September 11, 2011 (UTC) It's complete in terms of content, but content needs reorganization. ajr 23:51, September 11, 2011 (UTC) Technical MoS Check (BOR/CCG members only) Comments Plo Koon Nominated by:User: Crazed Penguin Nomination comments: It is a ood article. It is filled up with useful info. It should be a Class 1 article in my view Vote score: -3, Technical Check: Currently OK Support --User:Crazed Penguin/Sig 2 09:41, August 27, 2011 (UTC) (Nominator cannot vote) Object Well, I think it's good as complete. It only has minimal info about the character, and doesn't explore more details about the character's abilities in the video games, as well as background. Definitely needs to be expanded and updated in the video game section. Byzantium 3000![[Special:Editcount/Byzantium 3000|Special:Editcount/Byzantium 3000 edits!]] 15:58, August 27, 2011 (UTC) Per Byzantium NightblazeSaber 04:43, September 9, 2011 (UTC) Sorry Penguin, it still needs more background info--Munchman14 18:26, September 11, 2011 (UTC) Technical MoS Check (BOR/CCG members only) Comments 4865 The Forbidden Forest Nominated by: SKP4472 Talk [[Special:Editcount/SKP4472|Special:Editcount/SKP4472 Edits!]] Devoted Editor of Brickipedia 15:46, July 23, 2011 (UTC) Nomination comments: This article is well written and nothing more can be said about the set. I feel that this article meets Class 1 criteria and standards. Vote score: +2, Technical Check: Not OK Support Barely. -Cligra Join the redlink war! One of my favs, well done! -NBP 16:58, August 12, 2011 (UTC) Just barely a Rank 1, but it's there.--Munchman14 18:22, September 11, 2011 (UTC) (Sorry, QC Group Members Only) (no it isn't (unless something changed when I was away)- where does everyone get that idea? Anyone can vote, But only QCG can do a technical check and some other things, I believe the rules on this page are up to date -NHL) Object # The background section's grammar is not good at all, however, this is easily fixable. - nxt 15:50, July 23, 2011 (UTC) I've fixed the background section. SKP4472 Talk [[Special:Editcount/SKP4472|Special:Editcount/SKP4472 Edits!]] Devoted Editor of Brickipedia 16:48, July 23, 2011 (UTC) Technical MoS Check (BOR/CCG members only) Needs price in AUD (it's a recent set, so it's easily obtainable). Sections also need re-ordering per the MoS, specifically the minifigure gallery. NightblazeSaber 23:50, September 11, 2011 (UTC) Comments