Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/Featured log/October 2011
Good topic candidates: view - edit - history
- Contributor(s): Strange Passerby; Arsenikk; H1nkles; Courcelles
Here is a featured topic candidate for the 1952 Winter Olympics. It includes the primary article and lists that encompass all of the medal winners, all of the countries that won medals and venues of the Games. All the content is featured. H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 16:34, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry this is my first FT nomination and the title isn't formatted right but I don't know how to fix it. Could someone help out? Thanks.H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 16:46, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
- Personally, I feel this would need the breakdown of the events (see book) to feel complete. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:19, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
- This was discussed amongst the contributors and I'll try to summarize our thoughts; we felt the articles/lists provide a good overview of the topic while acknowledging that there are a couple of subtopics (events and nations at 1952 Winter Olympics). The article summarizes the events and the participating nations while the medalist lists give the medal winners in each event. I see merits in your suggestion but we were thinking this would make a good subtopic as would the articles on the nations participating at the 1952 Winter Games. Thoughts? H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 20:00, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
- The logic was the the nations would work as a sub-topic with the medal table as its lead, and the events as another with the list of medal winners as the lead to that. Courcelles 23:42, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
- This was discussed amongst the contributors and I'll try to summarize our thoughts; we felt the articles/lists provide a good overview of the topic while acknowledging that there are a couple of subtopics (events and nations at 1952 Winter Olympics). The article summarizes the events and the participating nations while the medalist lists give the medal winners in each event. I see merits in your suggestion but we were thinking this would make a good subtopic as would the articles on the nations participating at the 1952 Winter Games. Thoughts? H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 20:00, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
- Comment, 1952 Winter Olympics ref #53 (USA Today) seems to have a problem. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 06:02, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
- Yep you're right good catch, I've replaced it with a ref from the National Library of Medicine. Thanks! H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 16:13, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
- BTW if you didn't know, everytime you create a book, Noombot will create a bpok report like Book talk:1952 Winter Olympics#Book report, which contains an overview of the assessment ratings, cleanup tasks, and use of non-free media for the article, as well as several useful links such as an external link inspector (it's how I found the dead link) and disambiguation resolver. Useful even if you're not at FTC. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:07, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
- Good to know, I'm totally new at FTC and creating books. The bot is very useful especially at looking quickly through multiple articles. Thanks! H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 18:51, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
- Support For an overview, it's OK (maybe the sports can be added later - and if feeling really disposed, the nations?) igordebraga ≠ 01:25, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
- I've just browse a bunch of articles related to this, and if events and nations should be excluded for some reason, I don't see any reason to exclude Bids for the 1952 Winter Olympics, which is a stub. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:24, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
- As far as I'm concerned, Bids for the 1952 Winter Olympics should not exist at all as it is. The bids are well covered in the main article, and per WP:AVOIDSPLIT the small three sentence stub should not exist, the coverage in 1952 Winter Olympics section is much better. Merge the table of votes in and redirect would be my answer. Courcelles 11:21, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
- Agreed, I'll add the results table and then all the information in the Bids article will be in the main article. In my research for the article I wasn't able to find much more than what is in the main article. Bidding for the Games did not become controversial until the Games became big business back in the '80s. Until then the process had a low profile and consequently not much coverage. H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 16:05, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Any further comments/support? Would like to close this soon if I could. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:14, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
- IMO, the situation with Bids for the 1952 Winter Olympics should be resolved first. If it should not exist, merge it and be done with it. If it should exist, then the topic cannot pass, since the bids articles is not at GA-level. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 06:48, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
- The section in the main article already contained all, and far more, info than that stub. I'd assumed Hinkles had redirected it to the main Games article before, but seems he had not. Done now. Courcelles 16:18, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
- Support w/o bids article, seems to be set now. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 23:33, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
- Closed with consensus to promote as featured topic. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 02:50, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
5 articles
.jpg)
- Contributor(s): Hurricanehink, Cyclonebiskit
This could be transitioned into an FTC during the nomination process, if the Perfect Storm article gets featured in that time. That storm is included in the nomination, as it became a hurricane in its life cycle. I believe all of the articles are high quality, so I'm happy to present this topic. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:14, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
- Update: it now qualifies for featured topic, due to the 1991 Perfect Storm's passage. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:29, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
- Support This topic is dah bomb. HurricaneFan25 15:19, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
- Support great job Hink. YE Pacific Hurricane 14:51, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
- Support Meets the critia as I understand it. Miyagawa (talk) 11:47, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
- Support Awesome, Hink! TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 16:26, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
- Comment and Support Sorry I didn't bring this up at FAC, but why is there nothing in the article on why the Perfect Storm isn't Henri (the next in line if there was another Hurricane that season). Otherwise, support. Buggie111 (talk) 16:25, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
- Yea, operationally it wasn't classified as a tropical cyclone. This was to prevent confusion with the media/public, since the storm originated from a major coastal storm, and it wasn't expected to be a significant threat. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:31, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
- Comment Its been a while since anybody commented, and nobody objects, so...what happens now? TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 00:15, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- I asked about this. The directors are busy, but sometime this week they'll be taking care of all of the topics that were nommed before 10/1. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:16, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- Support, no concerns here. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 22:21, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- Closed with consensus to promote as featured topic. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 03:12, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Supplementary nominations
[edit]
3 articles
- Contributor(s): Jimfbleak
Only two species in this genus, so coherent set --Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:59, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
- Support. No brainer. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:22, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
- Support. I reviewed the genus article for GA, a standard which it far exceeds. This set is definitely worthy of FT. --Stemonitis (talk) 07:26, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
- Support. Excellent articles on a genuinely interesting subject, and wonderful pictures too. J Milburn (talk) 23:37, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
- Comment Alt text is in some need of attention. Not a reason to oppose, but since the topic is getting scrutiny, might as well think of our readers with visual disabilities. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:42, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
- Reply Alt text added to all images, although the double image doesn't show in altviewer Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:29, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- Support Great work Jim. Ucucha (talk) 03:43, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks to all who have supported so far, and to the editors who have made useful tweaks and suggestions Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:08, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
- Closed with consensus to promote as featured topic. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 02:43, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
- Contributor(s): The ed17
Here's another battleship class, similar to Wikipedia:Featured topics/Rivadavia-class battleships. These will eventually be folded into a larger South American dreadnought race topic (see User:The ed17/Next). Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 16:26, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
- Support. Good work, meets the criteria. Ucucha (talk) 01:28, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
- Support. Excelent job there! These are three wonderful articles! --Lecen (talk) 02:44, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
- Support Excellent work. P. S. Burton (talk) 18:28, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
- Support Great one. Buggie111 (talk) 14:44, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
- Comment Alt text on this topic is in big need of attention. While it's not a reason to oppose, might as well take the FTC as an opportunity to think of our visually impaired readers. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 03:59, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- When WP:ALT is corrected to something that's actually useful to visually-impaired readers (see the talk page archives), I'll add alt text. In the meantime, something like the example given at the top of WP:ALT is simply more clutter for those with screen readers, and I believe my captions provide enough context. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:55, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- Support--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:02, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
- Closed with consensus to promote as featured topic. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 15:10, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
13 articles
- Contributor(s): Jim Sweeney, Skinny87, Ranger Steve
I believe the article meets the Good Topic criteria. It includes a set of similar, interrelated articles that cover a specific topic, which are all GA Class or above. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:07, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
- Support All the articles on this division's major sub-units and operations are of GA standard - great work Jim. Nick-D (talk) 08:59, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
- Support What can I say? Simply exemplary. Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 09:35, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
- Support Superb. Superb. Buggie111 (talk) 14:28, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
| Resolved comments from Headbomb |
|---|
Comments
|
- Support Why not add British airborne operations in North Africa? It's a good article too. You might also consider Frederick Browning. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:17, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- I had not considered Browning, but the North Africa operation was not carried out by the 1st Airborne Division, just the 1st Parachute Brigade in an independent role.Jim Sweeney (talk) 06:56, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
- Support (Disclaimer - main contributor to the Battle of Arnhem article). Ranger Steve Talk 20:05, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
- Support A great example of a GT. Zangar (talk) 11:41, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
- Support - Excellent work all around. Keep it up! Parsecboy (talk) 12:49, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
- Comment In the footnotes section of the lead article I'm seeing three long gibberish strings, the first being "?UNIQ516aa7fbef5695e-nowiki-00000004-QINU?2?UNIQ516aa7fbef5695e-nowiki-00000005-QINU?". Is this on my end or is something broken over there? Sven Manguard Wha? 17:25, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry dont see that Sven Jim Sweeney (talk) 21:10, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
- I do see this problem in my normal Chrome and also in IE9, but only when logged out in both - I have no idea as to why! Zangar (talk) 10:56, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
- Yes logged out and get the same, it seems to link to the citation but instead of [22] has the uni-code. I have never seen it before and would not know how to fix it. Its strange as its not happening with other citations and a quick spot check of the other articles does not display the same. Jim Sweeney (talk) 11:24, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
- OK I have changed a <ref name=ferg15/> to <ref name=ferg15>Ferguson, p15</ref> which seem to have fixed it. Jim Sweeney (talk) 11:40, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
- Yep, that's got it, well done! Zangar (talk) 11:56, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
- OK I have changed a <ref name=ferg15/> to <ref name=ferg15>Ferguson, p15</ref> which seem to have fixed it. Jim Sweeney (talk) 11:40, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
- Yes logged out and get the same, it seems to link to the citation but instead of [22] has the uni-code. I have never seen it before and would not know how to fix it. Its strange as its not happening with other citations and a quick spot check of the other articles does not display the same. Jim Sweeney (talk) 11:24, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
- I do see this problem in my normal Chrome and also in IE9, but only when logged out in both - I have no idea as to why! Zangar (talk) 10:56, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry dont see that Sven Jim Sweeney (talk) 21:10, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
- Support. Excellent and well-organised coverage of a focused topic area. (Disclaimer: I copy-edited two of these articles for GA.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:46, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
- Closed with consensus to promote as good topic. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 02:50, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
24 articles
- Contributor(s): User:Theleftorium, User:Queenieacoustic, User:Ctjf83, User:Qst, User:Scorpion0422, User:Gary King, User:Cirt
- WP:DOH is finally back with another topic! Woo-hoo! --Theleftorium (talk) 17:22, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Comments Three articles have dead links in them ("Mayored to the Mob", "Viva Ned Flanders", "Maximum Homerdrive"). I've tagged them as such.Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:47, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
- User:Gran2 has fixed this. Theleftorium (talk) 19:37, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Support I've reviewed many of these for GA, and am happy to say they are a great set of articles. Ruby comment! 20:58, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
- Support, with a minor caveat that I'm disappointed the plot summaries aren't ever sourced. There are so many sources out there that could provide non-viewers a chance to have an objective summary of each episode, instead of relying on the episode itself for the source. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:40, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
- We just follow the manual of style (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Television#Plot section). Anyway, you can find plot summaries in at least two of the references we use in each episode.--Maitch (talk) 14:12, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
- I know, I just like seeing a ref after the plot summary. Tis all. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:06, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
- We just follow the manual of style (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Television#Plot section). Anyway, you can find plot summaries in at least two of the references we use in each episode.--Maitch (talk) 14:12, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
- Support igordebraga ≠ 02:01, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- Support Rreagan007 (talk) 20:23, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Support Looks good. Buggie111 (talk) 17:20, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
- Closed with consensus to promote as good topic. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 03:30, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Blackout (Britney Spears album)
[edit]
7 articles
I am nominating this for a good topic because I think it meets the criteria. All six articles are GA. I'm not sure if The M+M's Tour should be included though, but I consider it to be part of the background of the album. Xwomanizerx (talk) 18:44, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
- Support The tour should be included, yes. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:41, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
- Support Looks good to me. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:20, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
- Support Looks good. But I'm not sure about the tour though, as it wasn't really in support of the album. It was just kind of a random thing that she decided to do. — Status {talkcontribs 01:14, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
- Support, the tour is better in than out, Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:07, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
- Support - Saulo Talk to Me 19:03, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
- Comment Alt text on this topic is in some need of attention. While it's not a reason to oppose, might as well take the FTC as an opportunity to think of our visually impaired readers. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 04:05, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- Added alt text to all the articles of the topic. Xwomanizerx (talk) 04:13, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
- Closed with consensus to promote as good topic. Jim Sweeney (talk) 16:58, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Admiral Hipper class cruisers
[edit]
Admiral Hipper-class cruiser
6 articles
A class of five German heavy cruisers built shortly before World War II, only three were completed. Prinz Eugen is probably the most famous, as she was Bismarck's consort on her only mission. This group of ships may eventually be integrated into a larger topic and a <pipe dream>Cruisers of Germany topic similar to the recently promoted Battleships of Germany topic</pipe dream>. Parsecboy (talk) 19:00, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Support--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:18, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
- Support logical group that meets the criteria Arsenikk (talk) 11:54, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
- Support Jim Sweeney (talk) 20:02, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
- Comment there's a few links that need to be disambiguated in German cruiser Prinz Eugen. I've marked them. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 23:43, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
- Should all be fixed, thanks for catching those. Parsecboy (talk) 11:49, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
- Support more great work from Parsec Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 16:53, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
- Comment There's a {{citation needed}} in German cruiser Blücher, apparently. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:46, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
- It's been taken care of. Parsecboy (talk) 02:56, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
- Comment Alt text is in some need of attention. Not a reason to oppose, but since the topic is getting scrutiny, might as well think of our readers with visual disabilities. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:50, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
- Support. Topic meets the criteria. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:20, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
- Support--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:01, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
- Support The pipe dream is coming closer. Buggie111 (talk) 16:27, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
- Closed with consensus to promote as good topic. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 04:30, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
3 articles
- Contributor(s): Starstriker7
Three good articles, a star and its planets. Looks good to me. --Starstriker7(Talk) 05:41, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
- Comment, there are some {{citation needed}} tags in Kepler-10. See book report for details. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 22:41, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
- We're all in the clear now. --Starstriker7(Talk) 23:58, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
- Support. Another complete planetary system topic. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:59, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
- Support looks good Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:30, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
- Closed with consensus to promote as good topic. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 15:35, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
7 articles
- Contributor(s): GageSkidmore
The topic covers all of the episodes produced and aired during the Road to series of the animated comedy series Family Guy. I would like to promote this topic to good topic, as I believe it meets all of the criteria. --Gage (talk) 04:40, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
- Support All look good to me. Ruby2010 comment! 17:36, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
- Support - Reviewed two of these for GA; and have read through the others, which are also of suitable quality. GRAPPLE X 07:29, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
- Comment this topic should probably get a book of its own, similar to Book:Treehouse of Horror. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 22:44, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
- Comment Done. Gage (talk) 23:59, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
- Comment - the final portion of the "Segments" section of Road to... (Family Guy) is unsoured. Otherwise, very good topic. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:47, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
- Comment Done. Gage (talk) 23:44, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
- Comment Inspecting the external links reveal some problem with those of Road to... (Family Guy) and Road to Rhode Island. They seem to be referencing Google searches or something. See the book report ("Ext Links" tool) for details. There might be other issues with references to Film.com as well. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 01:13, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
- Comment Done. Gage (talk) 07:40, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
- Seems like there are still a few in Road to the North Pole and Road to Germany (all to film.com). Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:42, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
- Comment Done. Gage (talk) 01:21, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
- Seems like there are still a few in Road to the North Pole and Road to Germany (all to film.com). Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:42, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
- Comment Done. Gage (talk) 07:40, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
- Support. Topic meets criteria. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:18, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
- Closed with consensus to promote as good topic. - GamerPro64 20:13, 7 October 2011 (UTC)