Part 53450
From Brickipedia, the LEGO Wiki
< Brickipedia:Articles for Rating | Class 1
Revision as of 00:50, 29 October 2012 by wikia>Agent Charge
- Nominated by: –Agent Charge 22:14, October 21, 2012 (UTC)
- Nomination comments: It meets the criteria, and it stands out from most Class 2 articles. It has several pictures from different angles and a very thorough description.
Vote score: +4, Technical Check: OK
- Support
- Stormbringer Empire791 (talk) 23:33, October 21, 2012 (UTC)
I don't like the idea of C1 part articles, but I must admit this one is head and shoulders above the rest. User:Cligra/Sig
I've fixed what Berrybrick brought up. It looks good to me.
JeyoLord VladekTalk The Forge
Looks good. User:Captain Jag/sig1 01:05, October 23, 2012 (UTC)
Though I do think what NBS mentioned should be fixed, it isn't actually in the MoS (as far as I know). Berrybrick 20:49, October 23, 2012 (UTC)
- Object
Weak Oppose I would support if that image of the golden helmet was not from LDD. Berrybrick 10:23, October 22, 2012 (UTC)
Per Berrybrick (apart from the would support part) Personally I'd also like to see a list of element ID's for this article, it is meant to be the absolute best it can be to be a c1 after all. Honestly I thought this was a part of the infobox, but it looks like it got removed early on :S
NovaHawk 23:09, October 22, 2012 (UTC)- What would make you support? –Agent Charge 22:57, October 22, 2012 (UTC)
- The element IDs? Are those the numbers at the end of the building instructions? –Agent Charge 00:25, October 23, 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, I believe so.
JeyoLord VladekTalk The Forge- And where does that go? –Agent Charge 06:26, October 23, 2012 (UTC)
- Er...I've been wondering that myself. In my opinion, there should be a place in the part infobox for the element ID.
JeyoLord VladekTalk The Forge 06:28, October 23, 2012 (UTC)- There was when the template was first created, then it got removed a day or so after its creation :S Should I add it back in? NovaHawk 06:54, October 23, 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, I think so. Then we'd get to update all the part articles along with the idea KoN introduced! :D
JeyoLord VladekTalk The Forge- Yay, lots of fun! :D Added in the Element ID parameter, will have to check with the codemaster about how to get it so both show buttons don't show both hidden divs, but it's close enough for now. @The article- corrected years field (only had 2005 listed), correct name of gold colour, added in the two Element IDs I could find, unable to find the silver one. NovaHawk 23:37, October 23, 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, I think so. Then we'd get to update all the part articles along with the idea KoN introduced! :D
- There was when the template was first created, then it got removed a day or so after its creation :S Should I add it back in? NovaHawk 06:54, October 23, 2012 (UTC)
- Er...I've been wondering that myself. In my opinion, there should be a place in the part infobox for the element ID.
- And where does that go? –Agent Charge 06:26, October 23, 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, I believe so.
- The element IDs? Are those the numbers at the end of the building instructions? –Agent Charge 00:25, October 23, 2012 (UTC)
- What would make you support? –Agent Charge 22:57, October 22, 2012 (UTC)
- Technical MoS Check (QCG members only)
- Comments
- What's with the note? According to the article, there are no black helmets... NovaHawk 23:39, October 23, 2012 (UTC)
- Fixed the notes part. –Agent Charge 01:01, October 25, 2012 (UTC)
- Actually, it is black. The same black that the 3rd generation shadow knights are. It's just dotted with silver.
JeyoLord VladekTalk The Forge 02:25, October 28, 2012 (UTC)
- Actually, it is black. The same black that the 3rd generation shadow knights are. It's just dotted with silver.
- Fixed the notes part. –Agent Charge 01:01, October 25, 2012 (UTC)