Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/Failed log/September 2011

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Love. Angel. Music. Baby.

[edit]

Procedural nomination; it used to be a Featured Topic until it was demoted in 2010. I noticed that Cool, the reason why it was demoted, became a Good Article back in November and is now nominating it. GamerPro64 18:52, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, the topic should get its own book. Also, several article are crippled with deadlinks. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:21, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Contributor(s): Ed!

Good Topic nomination. A battle in the Korean War with three sub-battle articles contained therein. It's a self-contained narrative of a three-front engagement between UN and North Korean troops. --—Ed!(talk) 18:17, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article references two other battles. The Great Naktong Offensive (Start-Class) and the Battle of Inchon (C-Class). Why are these not included in the topic? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 23:26, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The topic features the battle around Masan, which took place in three adjacent axes; Battle Mountain, Haman and Nam River. Chronologically speaking Inchon took place after these battles and in a different area, and is generally considered to be the beginning of a different phase of the war. As for the Great Naktong Offensive, true it was an offensive of which two of the battles were a part, but the Pusan Perimeter was two months and comprised about 18 articles. I do plan on expanding this topic to include more eventually, but as for now, this just concerns what happened around Masan; those two articles aren't significant in that regard. —Ed!(talk) 02:12, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This topic needs more input big time. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 03:43, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well for what it's worth, I tend to agree with Ed HurricaneHink. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 05:32, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I agree with Ed's justification. --PresN 04:40, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]