Talk:B-wing

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Template:GAfailed

Star Wars Portal
This article is part of WikiProject Star Wars, which aims to build an encyclopedic guide to the Star Wars saga on Wikipedia. To participate, you can improve this article or visit the project page for more information.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. Please rate the article and leave a message on the talk page to explain the ratings and to identify possible improvements to the article.

Contents

[edit] Admiral Ackbar B-Wing Design

[edit] Origins

Dunno. Wookieepedia doesnae have it, and I've never heard that, and it doesn't appear in any of my reference works like the Essential Guide to Vehicles and Vessels. It should probably be removed. And while your point about credible militaries is well-taken, but it apparently is canon that exactly that was done with the early TIE Phantoms. --maru (talk) contribs 04:34, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Plagarized statements?

The statements "The B-wing is one of the Rebellion's most heavily-armed starfighters." and "Because the cockpit is surrounded by a unique gyrostabilization system, the pilot always remains stationary, even as the rest of the ship rotates during flight." were taken directly from the description of the B-wing in the Gamecube game Star Wars Rogue Squadron II: Rogue Leader. 24.50.211.226 13:47, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Failed GA nomination

I have reviewed this article, and do not feel that it currently meets the standards of a good article for the following reasons:

  1. It is incomplete - where are the sections about the development of the concept, or the sections on reception or popularity of the B-wing? Is this a famous and loved Star Wars ship? Other than Return of the Jedi, what has the B-Wing appeared in? Although being overly short does not preclude an article from being a good article, I find it hard to believe that there's so little to say about the subject.
  2. The "Depiction" section is written from an in-universe perspective, and, worse, fails to distinguish its fact from fiction.

Good luck revising the article. I look forward to reading it again. Phil Sandifer 21:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC)