Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/Failed log/March 2009

USS Iowa turret explosion

USS Iowa turret explosion

3 articles

Fred Moosally

A Glimpse of Hell

This topic is nominated as a featured topic candidate and is intended to be a sub-topic under the Wikipedia:Featured topics/Iowa class battleships featured topic. Fred Moosally was captain of Iowa at the time of the explosion and A Glimpse of Hell was a notable work of investigative journalism that publicized the results of the author's study into the explosion and its aftermath. Cla68 (talk) 07:40, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

• Support All is in order. Good luck with the nom, Cla68! TomStar810 (Talk) 17:28, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
• Support Zginder 2009-02-24T04:26Z (UTC)
• Support -- Meets WP:WIAFT.--TRUCO 01:49, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
• Support Meets all the requirements. — Bellhalla (talk) 15:48, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
• Support -MBK₀₀₄ 05:10, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
• Support Nick-D (talk) 08:01, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose I have significant concerns regarding NPOV, sourcing, and WP:BLP on the Fred Moosally article. The concerns are being addressed on the talk page at the moment, but if they can't be resolved there, then the article might be sent to WP:FAR. --Aude (talk) 10:59, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

• I have addressed the concern [1]. Cla68 (talk) 01:12, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
  • The concerns are not addressed. Actually, my concerns regarding the Thompson book as a source likely extend to the other two articles in this featured topic nomination. I think a detailed check of the references is needed and to search out other possible sources that can help make the articles more balanced, rather than giving undue weight to Thompson and his book. I realize that this sort of detailed reference check does not usually happen at FAC, especially with book sources. We are past FAC, but being a BLP and sensitive subject, I think a detailed check is needed in this case before I'm comfortable supporting this as a featured topic. Please bear with me as I track down copies of the print references. --Aude (talk) 09:07, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't a BLP problem be taken to FAR? If the sources are not sufficient, it would lose it's star and make this moot. I don't think FAC should involve second guessing the FA process.YobMod 15:56, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I think of FAR as something to try after discussion on the article talk page has failed to resolve any issues. Hopefully it won't be necessary. --Aude (talk) 22:15, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to wait for this to be resolved before promoting/not promoting this topic. I guess if the issues are resolved on the talk page, then the oppose here would be withdrawn and hence the topic can be happily promoted. But if the issues aren't resolved, then the article will end up at FAR, and then I'm not going to have to not promote the topic I'm afraid, because as per WP:FT?, "the topic should not have any active.... Featured article reviews... Nominations with one or more articles involved in a process mentioned above may result in a quick fail". Obviously if the article survives FAR, the topic can always come back here at that time - rst20xx (talk) 23:51, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

This is probably going to take awhile. Aude announced that he is ordering the book to look at it himself, so it will be threshed out on the talk page before it goes to FAR. My position is that the book is a reliable source, and it is clearly stated in the article when that source is the single source for an assertion. If you don't want this nomination squatting here while this gets discussed over the next few weeks, probably, I don't mind if you close the nomination as unsuccessful. Cla68 (talk) 00:01, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - as an aside, I was wondering about A Glimpse of Hell (film) anyway. I am not sure how notable it is but it appears to be a gap - rst20xx (talk) 02:05, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• Actually, you may be right that the film article should be developed and included in the topic. I thought that since the film was a work of historical fiction, from what I've read about it, that it shouldn't be included. I could be wrong, however, because the film does concern itself to some degree with the topic and may be the reason that some of the real-life people involved decided to sue the writer of the book. Cla68 (talk) 03:52, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• Close with no promotion as per the above discussion - rst20xx (talk) 17:52, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Metroid titles

Metroid (series)

11 articles

Metroid
Metroid II: Return of Samus
Super Metroid
Metroid Fusion

Metroid Prime
Metroid: Zero Mission
Metroid Prime 2: Echoes
Metroid Prime Pinball

Metroid Prime Hunters
Metroid Prime 3: Corruption

Nominator(s): igordebraga ≠, Gary King (talk)

Since the Metroid series fulfills the current and future required quantity of Featured material (Prime = my work, with some help by User:Judgesurreal777; Prime 2 and List of media: both me and Gary King; Prime 3: mostly Gary King), the series article is a GA since 2007 and the rest of the games reached GA status this year, seems like it is a worthy addition to the Featured Topics. (if you ask why "titles" and not "series": Samus Aran is still B-class) igordebraga ≠ 22:15, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

"rest of the games reached GA status this year", as in all of them by mostly me in the past month? I should probably have made it more obvious that I was aiming for a full FT, which I'll remember for next time. I was planning to bring every article in the topic to FAC; I think that they are all FA-worthy already, but the process itself takes too long that by the time they are all FA, the topic would have been nominated at least a dozen times by the same people. Gary King (talk) 04:01, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Support -- Seems to be complete.--₮RUCӨ 01:07, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't know it was still incomplete.--₮RUCӨ 23:09, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Guys, can't you all just wait for the entire series to be a topic? I'm almost done with Samus's article; this topic has been nominated so many times already my head is spinning. Please, have some patience. Gary King (talk) 03:43, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

  Oppose In any case, I don't think that List of Metroid media belongs here if it's strictly just titles. And if that is removed, then this article needs one more featured item. Gary King (talk) 03:55, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

  Also, regarding this on my talk page, Samus Aran can't be added to this nomination in a supplementary nomination just yet, as another featured item would be needed in the topic in order to add another article. I don't get why we can't just come to FTC with all the articles ready in one shot, especially when the topic is so close. Gary King (talk) 04:25, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know. There is a featured topic that started with just the games, then had anything else added... And there's another, but the process was less well-received. igordebraga ≠ 15:05, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose, List of M Media shouldn't be in a "titles" topic; and it's not nice to steal someone's baby. --PresN 04:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Conditional Support -- if List of Media is removed. Sorry, Gary King, but it seems your "baby" has been attacked too many times recently. You can still, however, continue to promote the articles to FA, you don't have to wait until they're all FAs to nominate. Lucky, that's 27% FAs. --haha169 (talk) 05:33, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

It has to be 33% FAs to be a featured topic.

No, just starting on April 1st. And there's no deadline.

• Weak oppose. If only one more article is needed to make this a complete topic on the series, making a titles topic seems pointless - adding the final article will require another disussion and a retitle and refocus. If people want credit for FTs, they should be working on promoting more articles, nomninating without the prinicpal editor will just make people secretive. Do we want people doing all their work off wiki and nominating everything in one go to prevent premature nominations?YobMod 09:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
• Comment - I, too, would be inclined to wait - what's the rush? Let the topic become complete first! Also I have concerns about the place of the media list in the topic - rst20xx (talk) 09:36, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comment There is no deadline, and it is courteous to at least ask the primary contributor before starting an FTC. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:33, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
• It's just that I had much input in most of these articles. But since you question the list of media, I removed it. igordebraga ≠ 15:05, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose Not sure how valid it is under the criteria, but given that only one more item (and the re-addition of List of M media) is needed to make the topic complete, and the fact that this wouldn't qualify for FT (27%) come 1 April (33%), I think we should wait. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:43, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Withdrawing. Will restart as a GT nomination after Samus passes the GA. igordebraga ≠ 18:12, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Triple Gold Club

Triple Gold Club

4 articles

List of Stanley Cup champions

List of Olympic medalists in ice hockey

List of IIHF World Championship medalists

Co-nominator: Scorpion⁰⁴²² and MaximThe definition of this one is strictly the lists of champions, as the main article is a list too. Admittedly, you could do a larger topic that would also include: Stanley Cup, Ice Hockey World Championships and Ice hockey at the Winter Olympics, but I think this version works just as well. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:52, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose - sorry, but I don't see what the main article being a list has to do with anything. People "join the club" by winning the trophy and two medals, but you haven't included the trophy and two medals in this proposed topic, just lists of who else has won them, and hence I oppose - rst20xx (talk) 01:45, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Technically, the lead article is also a "List of winners" article, so you could make the topic something like "Triple Gold Club, lists of members" or something similar. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:18, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
    • But the entire list of members is contained within the lead! rst20xx (talk) 13:37, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
• Support – the "Triple Gold Club" refers to the players who have won the three awards, not the three awards themselves. While the three articles Scorpion mentions would be proper for a supplementary addition, the topic is complete with the three lists of players. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 05:48, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

• But all the players who have actually won the three awards are listed in the main article itself! The only thing the other lists add are the players who haven't won, and I don't see how they are any more relevant than the awards themselves - rst20xx (talk) 13:52, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comment -- shouldn't the sub article be the main Stanley Cup and not the list of winners?--₮RUCӨ 19:30, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Or even both?

I would support a rename, per Dabomb. If someone decides to make a Triple Gold Club topic with the main articles, that should be the main topic, with this merged into that, not a case of adding the mains as suplementary to this one.YobMod 07:30, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if that can happen since the main Triple Club article is also the list of champions.--₮RUCӨ 17:25, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I consider the main article to be both an article on the subject, and a list. The current systam forces us to categoise as one or the other, but it is not a true split. As there is not a separate main article on the TGC, this is it. Breaking it into an article and list would not result in any more coverage, yes?YobMod 08:01, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I think in many ways we can should consider the current main article as both the non-list and the list on its subject. But I don't think the "lists" topic makes any sense anyway because they do not really have very much in common - any extra information added by the sublists is irrelevant to the main list - rst20xx (talk) 12:20, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose Per User:Rst20xx, I think this topic wouldn't work without Stanley Cup, Ice Hockey World Championships and Ice hockey at the Winter Olympics because the awards are more relevant to the Triple Gold Club than the list of other winners who never won all three awards.—Chris! _ct 00:18, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if that can happen since the main article in this topic also lists the winners.--₮RUCӨ 01:53, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Withdraw I was pretty sure this wouldn't fly, but I decided to give it a try anyway. I'm currently working on Ice hockey at the Winter Olympics and I'll be back eventually with all three winners lists and articles. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 14:53, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

• Withdrawing - rst20xx (talk) 15:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC)