Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/Failed log/September 2007

Georgia Institute of Technology

Main page	Articles
Georgia Institute of Technology	List of Georgia Institute of Technology alumni - Tech Tower - Georgia Tech traditions - History of Georgia Tech - Ramblin' Wreck - Buzz (mascot) - Clean, Old-Fashioned Hate - George P. Burdell - Ramblin' Wreck from Georgia Tech - The Technique - Marion L. Brittain

WikiProject Georgia Tech has been fairly successful so far, and thus I bring you the list of articles that we've improved to FA, A, and GA class in the hopes that it'll make an acceptable Featured Topic. We could also add Calvin Johnson (American football) and Reggie Ball to the list (A and GA class), but they are somewhat tangentially related. At the moment, the alumni list is a featured list, Tech Tower is a featured article, and Ramblin' Wreck is at FAC. History of Georgia Tech has had a previous FAC, and will (as soon as I get some time to address concerns from the last one) have another. While it won't affect this as much, note that I plan on splitting a section of the alumni list (#Athletics) into its own list, and will nominate that at FLC. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 02:21, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

According to the newly spelled out criteria, you need two more featured articles from the Good articles you have, and also, are you sure that these are all the articles that could be put under this heading? Judgesurreal777 18:36, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I derived this list from the quality rankings of articles from WikiProject Georgia Tech. Go to WP:TECH/AS for the chart and list of nominations/etc. So, you're saying that there are too many GAs per FA? Somehow, that doesn't seem very fair... well, we'll know whether or not Ramblin' Wreck is FA within a week or so. While we don't have any other articles at FAC, many could be nominated in their present state, such as Georgia Institute of Technology, Georgia Tech traditions, and Calvin Johnson (American football). So, it's borderline. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 18:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

What i mean is that you have nominated 12 articles, so 1/3 of them should be featured, so 4 featured articles. You have 2, so you need to upgrade two of your GA's. But an equally big issue is comprehensiveness. This university is a big topic, and many more articles could be included in it, so the 12 you chose may not fully cover the topic of this college. Judgesurreal777 20:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, okay. Well, I guess I need to withdraw this nomination until I've got 1/3 Featured Articles/Lists. I'm fairly certain that those 12 articles represent the college rather well. Not that there aren't articles on other topics, but I think we've done a fairly good job of focusing on the school's more important articles. It's just that we haven't pushed many of those articles the "last step" into FA-land. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 06:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't mean to be a pain by pointing all of this out, but I really do want to help :) I STRONGLY suggest that you find a way to rein in the size of the topic; the whole university could mean 100+ articles to be considered comprehensive. Could you do "Athletics of.." or "alumni of..." and then list notable alumni? See if something like that is possible so comprehensiveness is achievable. Judgesurreal777 07:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

So you're saying, create a new Featured Topic Candidate around the alumni list, and add FA/GA alumni to it. I'm not sure there are many; let's see... we have  List of Georgia Institute of Technology alumni, I just created List of Georgia Institute of Technology athletes and nominated it at FLC, and as for specific alumni we have Calvin Johnson (American football), Reggie Ball, and George P. Burdell... and that's it. Even Jimmy Carter's article is only B-class. I suppose that fits the 1/3 ratio rule, but it's hardly representative of the school's alumni. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 20:54, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I offer that as an example, you would know better than I if that list would be comprehensive. This is a really tough topic to try to feature, but make it very specific... "Faculty of..." with a lead article as the list of faculty and then any notable faculty. Something like that. Judgesurreal777 23:59, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

• Strong oppose Obvious cherry picking. The only article covering the campus and college divisions is Tech Tower, hardly a major subtopic. The FT proposal is also heavily biased toward student live, and practically ignore academic stuff, which is preposterous given this is, y'now, an academic institution. Circeus 01:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  • The only articles that focus heavily on "academic stuff" are the school's article and the individual college articles, the latter of which aren't comprehensive enough for GA or FA status/nomination at this point. I suppose the problem is that I don't quite understand what constitutes a "featured topic." My reading of the criteria led me to believe that it is merely a collection of related, high-quality articles, but upon closer reading of the criteria, I agree that this isn't ready for a featured topic. I have some ideas for more specific subjects, though. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 18:29, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Fail --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 20:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

The KLF

Many to choose from, but with over four featured articles and many, many GAs and well researched pieces there is nothing in the way of this taking Featured Topic status.

Main page	Articles
The KLF	1987 (What the Fuck Is Going On?) - All You Need Is Love (The JAMs song) - Fuck the Millennium - KLF Communications - The K Foundation burns a million pounds - Doctorin' the Tardis

Oppose - unfortunately, there is. The nominated topic is cherry-picking- it doesn't include all of the article related to The KLF, nor does it include all of the album articles, nor any other reasonably defined topic. What it is is a bunch of good articles that are all related to the KLF that you threw together into a nomination. Please re-nominate as a well-defined topic with no gaps. --PresN 14:58, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment. This is a part of Wikipedia I've not discovered before so I'm not entirely sure what the drill is here, but just to address the above comment: the complete topic can be found in Category:The KLF and/or listed at WP:KLF. I'm pretty sure all relevant articles are there. Some are FA, some are GA, but some are neither yet. Hope that helps. --kingboyk 20:01, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose While the KLF has some exemplary articles, more need to be GA / FA. LuciferMorgan 23:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
• Fail -2 oppose and 1 support after 16 days. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 01:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Wild cats of the United States

Well, breaking one rule as this does not have a main linking article (creating an actual article of this title doesn't make much sense). The relevant categories would be Category:Felines and Category:Mammals of North America. It's 'wild cats' so as not to include the cat in your living room.

Main page	Articles
Wild cats of the United States	Bobcat - Canadian Lynx - Cougar - Jaguar

As I see it, only Bobcat and Cougar have to be FAs and both are. Jaguar is FA, while Canadian Lynx is middling. If someone wants to suggest an example of what level to bring Can. Lynx to, I'll try do so; I'm indifferent to the GA process, but the page can be made more competent. Note that this can be expanded. If Can. Lynx is done to FA we can expand to Wild cats of the Canada and the United States; if Ocelot and Jaguarundi are done, expand to Mexico. And so on. Marskell 19:16, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I'll have to oppose, on the basis there is no centralized topic. It seems you nominated only ones that article good articles, which fails the first FT criterion. The articles are not linked with a template, and it omits several cats not listed above, like the Florida Panther, for example. A main article is needed, as well. Hurricanehink (talk) 19:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Florida Panther is a subspecies of maybe one hundred individuals (i.e., it is a Cougar). (And what are the other "several"?) Also not sure what is meant by "The articles are not linked with a template." Which template? The "centralized topic" makes sense as a talking point but is silly as a rule insofar as it demands an actual page. We should determine if there's clearly a linkage between the articles, yes? Here, there is: these are the four species extant in the United States, with the central two featured. I'm not particularly bothered, because I've never been here before. Marskell 23:42, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I thought it was a specific species. But are those the only four major wildcat species in the United States? Regardless of that, I oppose for several other reasons. One of the FT criterion is that all of the articles are linked by a template. Another criterion failed is the lack of every article being GA or greater (Canadian Lynx needs to be a GA). It also fails the second requirement - "The topic has an introductory and summary lead article". What about creating an article on List of wildcats in the United States? Hurricanehink (talk) 00:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

This arguably counts as a fifth, although the IUCN reports only "a small remnant population" in the U.S. In fact, it should really be only three, given the Jaguar is basically sightings. In any case, I'm withdrawing. This seems too focused on wikilawyering ahead of content improvement. Marskell 14:49, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Withdrawn by nominator - 10:50, September 17, 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arctic.gnome (talk • contribs) 20:24, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Works of Mary Wollstonecraft

Main page	Articles
Mary Wollstonecraft	Thoughts on the Education of Daughters - Mary: A Fiction - Original Stories from Real Life - A Vindication of the Rights of Woman - A Vindication of the Rights of Men - Letters Written in Sweden, Norway and Denmark - Maria: or, The Wrongs of Woman

This set is based on this template {{Mary Wollstonecraft}}. The series has a very high percentage of (over half) which will only get higher. All the rest are GAs, the last being recently promoted. Analytical Review, which is on the template, is not included because it is a periodical and not exclusively her work. Maria: or, The Wrongs of Woman, is a current Featured Article Candidate. Wrad 05:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment As Wrad and others are aware, I have been working on these MW articles for about a year now (I am the primary editor of all of them). I was planning on submitting a "Mary Wollstonecraft" featured topic in a couple of months or so, after the remaining articles had advanced from GA to FA and I had had an opportunity to revise Mary Wollstonecraft to reflect the newly written pages on her works. I had also wanted time to go over all of the pages again and polish them up, standardize them, etc. before submitting them here. Is there any way to put this nomination on hold for several months or simply resubmit it later? Like Wrad, I am anxious to see the topic nominated, but I feel that it is not quite ready. Awadewit | talk 06:14, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Minor point: The topic should either be "Mary Wollstonecraft" so that it can eventually include articles such as William Godwin and Fanny Imlay or it should be called "Major works of Mary Wollstonecraft" as these are not all of her works. My personal preference is for the more inclusive "Mary Wollstonecraft". Awadewit | talk 06:14, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment. Normally, one supports or opposes, but in this case I would say allow the main editor more time, as she wishes. That isn't to say that the topic is not already of featured quality (I know most of these articles well, and I think it is, though there are some more articles and connected matter to be polished up to make it as outstandingly comprehensive as it intends to be), but colleague Awadewit is approaching this task so professionally that I think it would be wrong to knock her off her stride at this point. Colleague Wrad is a very friendly and flexible editor, and I am sure he will understand this point. This threatens to be one of the most remarkable personal projects on wikipedia, so I hope that there is a way to gently postpone this nomination.qp10qp 11:36, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

• Withdrawn by nominator - 11:47, September 15, 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arctic.gnome (talk • contribs) 20:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Wilco albums

Main page	Articles
Wilco discography	A.M. (album) - Being There (album) - Summerteeth - Yankee Hotel Foxtrot - A Ghost Is Born - Sky Blue Sky

All of Wilco's studio albums have reached at least GA status (SBS is featured), and their discography is a featured list. Teemu08 14:54, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

• Weak oppose The topic has a pretty glaring omission in not including Singles and possibly the only articled EP. Circeus 01:06, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Does it really make sense to create a new list just for their albums? Seems like a waste to me. Teemu08 16:30, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
    • As mentioned below, you could start with re-circumscribing the topic to "Wilco Albums", which is clearly what was originally meant. Circeus 16:47, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
      • But we can no longer nominate categories. While I don't mind making a new list strictly for Wilco albums, I don't see the point. Teemu08 17:11, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
        • But the discography would still work as a main article. Circeus 18:47, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
          • So just changing the title of the nomination (as such) would suffice? Teemu08 21:07, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
            • Would certainly help. See Presn's oppose below.Circeus 21:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - Singles and EP's wouldn't have to be included if the topic was "Wilco albums" instead of their whole discography, but in that case, I still oppose. Even though it doesn't include collaborations, I can let that go, but there doesn't seem to be a good reason not to include their live album, other than that it's not GA+. --PresN 06:15, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
• Update - Kicking Television is now at GA Candidates. Teemu08 22:13, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - Should include a few released singles of GA quality or higher. NSR77 ^T_C 18:54, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Topic is now "Wilco albums", so including the singles is unnecessary. WesleyDodds 22:48, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, well, then I'll support upon the live album passing GAC (which I'm confident it will). NSR77 ^T_C 23:52, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Conditional Support Teemu08 has done some great work on Wilco articles. Mainly waiting for the live album to pas GAC. WesleyDodds 23:31, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
• Fail - This has been here long enough without any supports. The topic isn't that far from being featured, so I recommend you try again after working on it a bit more. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 14:37, 14 September 2007 (UTC)