Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/Good log/October 2009

2009 Giro d'Italia

3 articles

Stage 1 to Stage 11

Stage 12 to Stage 21

List of teams and cyclists

I believe this satisfies the Good topic criteria, with three related articles all at GA quality and a related list at FL quality. I will be seeking to improve 2009 Giro d'Italia to FA, which would in turn satisfy the Featured topic criteria, but baby steps :P Alex finds herself awake at night _{(Talk · What keeps her up)} 02:03, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support - looks good to me, good luck with the FA! rst20xx (talk) 23:24, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, it is nice to see high-quality articles on cycling. -MBK₀₀₄ 01:01, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Excellent work. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 02:17, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - sweet! (although "Result may be removed due to positive doping tests" probably needs an update) Nergaal (talk) 22:06, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's still of eventual if not impending likelihood, given that Di Luca is apparently fighting it. It took over two years before Floyd Landis was officially removed as winner of the 2006 Tour de France. Suppose the (admittedly) constant refs next to Di Luca's name should be eliminated, and let the mention of his doping in prose do the trick? Alex finds herself awake at night _{(Talk · What keeps her up)} 23:06, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Once this becomes a GT, you can also highlight that this will eventually need updating on the topic talk page, and if possible, the date the list of winners will next need updating. As long as it is noted there and on the articles talk page, it's not a problem for the nom. The rest looks good, so support.Yob Mod 13:21, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support —Terrence and Phillip 23:40, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Close with consensus to promote - rst20xx (talk) 22:42, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1973 Atlantic hurricane season

5 articles

Hurricane Brenda

Tropical Storm Christine

Tropical Storm Delia

Tropical Storm Gilda

Main contributors: Cyclonebiskit (talk · contribs) and Hurricanehink (talk · contribs)

I am nominating the 1973 Atlantic hurricane season as a good topic. The storms in the season that warranted articles--Brenda, Christine, Delia and Gilda--are all at good article status. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 22:59, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Meets the criteria. No omissions, as the other storms are not substantial enough to receive articles. Good work. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:03, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Per JCJason Rees (talk) 23:08, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Looks good; I suppose that there's not enough info to create a timeline? Dabomb87 (talk) 02:13, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can't go with the timeline, as according to my last FLC, one key source can't be used because some people can't read it if they don't know the HURDAT format. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 02:15, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But I thought an article had been created to aid in interpreting that source. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:37, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(Note: The FLC being discussed is this one) My reading of that FLC is that if an article explaining the HURDAT format is created on Wikipedia, then HURDAT references can be used, so the FLC could then pass. Having said that, even if an FL could be created here, I am not sure whether it should be a requirement for season topics to include timelines. So far we have 2 Pacific seasons without a timeline and one with a timeline, and one recent Atlantic season with both a timeline and a list of storms. If we decide it should be a requirement to include a timeline, then the 2 Pacific seasons without timelines need to get a 3 month retention period - rst20xx (talk) 20:39, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is an article on HURDAT, located at HURDAT, with a "how to read" section. There is also a full explanation on the official site. As for the timeline, I didn't find it really necessary for this season as there were few storms of note and not much change. It would be a fairly boring article to have. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 20:43, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The problem isn't that it would be boring, but that information on the majority of the systems during the 1973 season is scarce or even non-existent. Indeed, if a timeline was created, the majority of the events listed would lack specific information and would be exceedingly vague in nature. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:45, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because the season was very long ago? What about the 1994/98 Pacific seasons? (I realised there was a HURDAT article, it was created after the FLC) rst20xx (talk) 21:35, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's part of the reason. The 1994 and 1998 Pacific seasons would indeed need timelines (I'd be happy to do the honors). –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:37, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - okay - rst20xx (talk) 12:03, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hurricanehink never fails to impress me. :) —Terrence and Phillip 05:50, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, although Cyclonebiskit did most of the work on three of these four articles, so don't leave him out... :) –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:57, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. AGF'ing that the other storms simply aren't notable enough for their own articles per Juliancolton. Staxringold _talk^contribs 16:57, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support good work -- EA Swyer ^Talk _{Contributions} 11:04, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - time to promote this, but before I do, am I right in thinking that there is agreement that the 1994 and 1998 Pacific hurricane season topics need Timeline articles, i.e. should I set retention periods for these two topics (say, three months from the promotion of this topic)? rst20xx (talk) 11:50, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's fine. When the timelines for 94 and 98 are at FL status, can they be summarily added to the topics? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:00, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know it's a pain but I think they still need to go through supplementary nominations to give a chance for wider feedback - rst20xx (talk) 15:15, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, fair enough - thanks for the response. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:25, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I have added the retentions, happily the Timeline list will also pull the 1994 topic up from good to featured, once added, so there's a bit more incentive, too - rst20xx (talk) 15:37, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Close with consensus to promote - congratulations - rst20xx (talk) 15:44, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The World's Greatest Tag Team

4 articles

File:TWGTT-Haas-&-Benjamin-Postmatch,-RLA-Melb-10.11.2007.jpg

Kurt Angle

Shelton Benjamin

Charlie Haas

Main contributors: Nikki311, Deep Shadow, NiciVampireHeart

I am nominating the topic The World's Greatest Tag Team as a Good Topic. The World's Greatest Tag Team was a professional wrestling tag team in WWE, comprised of Shelton Benjamin and Charlie Haas. The team originally started out as a faction known as Team Angle which was captained by Kurt Angle. Out of the four articles in the topic, three are Good articles (The World's Greatest Tag Team, Charlie Haas and Kurt Angle), and Shelton Benjamin is a Featured article. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 11:32, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Passes criteria for GT--WillC 13:33, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - seems like you guys are going for the record of wikiproject with the most topics! rst20xx (talk) 23:49, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like it doesn't it? :P ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 14:21, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Passes from what I can see. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:14, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Really quite impressive work. Have you guys thought, given the extensive number of GA/FAs you're showing in these topics, of finishing off an entire active WWE show's roster and getting an FT on that? (be hard work to maintain, but it'd be big). Staxringold _talk^contribs 21:35, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That would be near impossible. WWE's roster is near 90 people and changes constantly. TNA Wrestling's is near 50ish and changes as well. Nice idea though.--WillC 22:54, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not ALL of WWE, just one show. Like... The RAW roster (or at least the notable members)? Staxringold _talk^contribs 00:18, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well they are all in one list. To break them up into brands would somewhat be content forking. Even though, they still change constantly. New guys get moved up from FCW, signed then debut, released, or moved from another brand.--WillC 00:35, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's an interesting idea Staxringold, but it'd be near impossible to maintain as a topic. People are constantly released, sent back down to developmental, brought up from development, not all of them have articles, etc. I'm certainly not up to the challenge. :) ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 14:21, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Terrence and Phillip 05:49, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Close with consensus to promote - rst20xx (talk) 23:02, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deuce 'n Domino

5 articles

Main contributors: NiciVampireHeart and ThinkBlue

We are nominating Deuce and Domino as a Good Topic. Deuce 'n Domino was a professional wrestling faction in WWE, comprised of Jimmy Reiher, Jr., Cliff Compton, Kara Drew, and Maryse Ouellet, known by their ring names Deuce, Domino, Cherry, and Maryse respectively. All five articles in the topic are of Good article status. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ and -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 18:52, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Huh, I didn't know Maryse Ouellet had been around before this past year. Interesting. Staxringold _talk^contribs 21:40, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - rst20xx (talk) 22:18, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Was Maryse really a member? She was only featured with them for a short time I do remember. Probably a month I believe. Doesn't seem long enough to me to be apart of the group.--WillC 03:11, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
She accompanied them to the ring on a few occasions, wrestled in a six person tag team match with them, and is mentioned in the WWE Encyclopedia as their manager, so yes, she really was a member. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 11:16, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay.--WillC 15:24, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Afro Gold - Afkatk 14:38, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Passes criteria--WillC 15:24, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Passes, from what I can see. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:14, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Terrence and Phillip 05:49, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Close with consensus to promote - rst20xx (talk) 22:47, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]