Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/Featured log/August 2011
Good topic candidates: view - edit - history
Hey, it's taken the better part of 15 months, but here's a topic on the Hugo Awards- science fiction's biggest awards. The awards are broken up in several current and historical categories, and they're all featured lists. The lead is only a GA, but when I get some time I plan on tracking down some offline sources to boost it to FA, so that the whole thing will be featured. It's still a Featured Topic nomination right now, though, and everything should be good to go! --PresN 19:54, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
- Support Comprehensively covered. —Adabow (talk · contribs) 23:40, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
- Support. Great work. I think it would be better to sort the articles alphabetically in the topic box. Ucucha 00:01, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- Headbomb thought so as well, but I reverted it because this way, like is with like- written works together, magazines together, etc. Additionally, despite all the many categories Novels, and to a lesser extent the other written stories, are the big players- most people are only vaguely aware that there are even other categories, caring only about the novel of the year- and this layout puts them first in the topic box. --PresN 00:17, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- Support - great job! --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:30, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
- Support have watched this steadily
clogging upcoming through FLC - well done! BencherliteTalk 09:32, 9 August 2011 (UTC) - Support. I use these articles all the times to grab references for others! Great job. Glimmer721 talk 01:01, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- Closed with consensus to promote as featured topic. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 02:50, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Supplementary nominations
[edit]
- Contributor(s): JKBrooks85
Procedural nom; this topic was originally delisted since the primary article writer left. He has returned and brought the articles up to GA though, so this topic is again complete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 17:25, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- Comment Some dead links are present in the articles. See book report. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:32, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- Fixed. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 20:26, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
- Still some. Citation 37 in 2008 Orange Bowl e.g. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 06:45, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
- Fixed. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 20:26, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
- Support topic is now back up to requirements so can be re-promoted. BencherliteTalk 10:34, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
- Support, meets requirements again. Rreagan007 (talk) 14:29, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
- Wow, err, support :) ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:44, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
- Support Very good work. Gage (talk) 05:29, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
- Comment I just inspected the articles with the "Ext Links" tool in the book reports, and several articles contain several dead links. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 07:48, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
- Alas, I've been unable to easily replace the Orange Bowl deadlink noted above, and there wasn't enough in the ref where I can just de-URL it. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:21, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
- Closed with consensus to promote as good topic. - GamerPro64 00:49, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
.png)
- Contributor(s): Ruby2010
It's been a lot of work, but I have finally promoted all of the Fringe season 2 articles to either GA or FA status. This will be my first GT, and I'm ready and willing to address any of your comments. Thanks. --Ruby2010 comment! 03:19, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
- Support Great job! igordebraga ≠ 17:45, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
- Support - I reviewed a lot of these articles for their GA nominations, and the quality is high across the board. GRAPPLE X 17:49, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
- Support I have reviewed some Fringe articles for GA, all the ones I read are in shape. And also thanks to Ruby2010 for the hard work of putting them together. -- Matthew RD 21:05, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
- Support has all the season 2 episodes and the parent season article.--Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 02:45, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
- Support - Great quality articles. Glimmer721 talk 00:57, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- Comment there are some
deadlinks{{citation needed}} in some of the articles. See the book report. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:36, 11 August 2011 (UTC) - Support, but I wonder whether Unearthed should be here or in season one. Or, I should ask, was that episode indeed included on the season 2 box set? Furthermore, I'd like if the deadlinks were fixed. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:50, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for the support. Unearthed was indeed included on the season 2 DVD, and is generally considered a part of that season due to the broadcast date. Also, what deadlinks are you referring to? None came up during the recent GA reviews. Thanks, Ruby2010 comment! 18:00, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- I see from the book report that Grey Matters has 2 × [citation needed], (which it looks like someone removed the citations stating it was not a RS), but I don't see any deadlink notifications either.--Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 18:10, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- Had a wee look online, and I couldn't find anything that met WP:RS that made the connections cited. If they're not mentioned on the DVD, maybe in a featurette or commentary, it might be safer removing them until they can be sourced. GRAPPLE X 02:37, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
- I removed the content in question and added it to talkpage until suitable references come along. Thanks, Ruby2010 comment! 21:05, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
- Great, thanks! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:40, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
- I removed the content in question and added it to talkpage until suitable references come along. Thanks, Ruby2010 comment! 21:05, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
- Had a wee look online, and I couldn't find anything that met WP:RS that made the connections cited. If they're not mentioned on the DVD, maybe in a featurette or commentary, it might be safer removing them until they can be sourced. GRAPPLE X 02:37, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
- Support Looks good to me. Gage (talk) 23:01, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
- Support Nice work. Pedro J. the rookie 17:19, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Comment there's a few dead links in Fringe (season 2), Northwest Passage (Fringe) and Over There (Fringe) . See the book report ("Ext Links" tool) for details. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 07:52, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
- All of those links belonged to a certain author at the Vancouver Sun. I couldn't find them or the cited information anywhere else on Google, so I just deleted the URLs and kept them as treelinks. I also addressed a few issues with the Chicago Tribune sources in the season 2 article. Thanks for taking the time to look them over, Ruby2010 comment! 16:03, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
- Closed with consensus to promote as good topic. - GamerPro64 18:51, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Battleships of Germany
[edit]
Brandenburg-class battleship
- Kaiser Friedrich III-class battleship
- Wittelsbach-class battleship
- Braunschweig-class battleship
- Deutschland-class battleship
Nassau-class battleship
- Helgoland-class battleship
- Kaiser-class battleship
- König-class battleship
- Bayern-class battleship
- L 20 α-class battleship
- Scharnhorst-class battleship
- Bismarck-class battleship
- H class battleship proposals
I have worked on this project for over four years, and it is finally complete. Parsecboy (talk) 12:39, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
- Support a 62 article Good Topic with a quarter of them FA class. Jim Sweeney (talk) 13:15, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
- Support, although I'm not sure if the sub-topic version is preferable. This is visually very impressive, but rather bulky.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:49, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
- Well, there is precedent for a topic this large - Wikipedia:Featured topics/Governors of Kentucky has 60 articles in it. Parsecboy (talk) 14:15, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
- Support for the big version, not only because it looks grand and majestic and more visually appealing but also because it is far more illuminating and has a more cohesive and encyclopedic feel to it. Also, it is equally well logically set up as the shortened version. Great work by Parsecboy. - DSachan (talk) 09:44, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
If we're going with the 62-article version, should we still have the many subtopics for this one? Wizardman Operation Big Bear 18:01, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
- I'd say no - with the battlecruisers, the earlier Wikipedia:Featured topics/Derfflinger class battlecruisers topic was merged into the main topic. Parsecboy (talk) 18:09, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
- Ok; if you can, note which topics will be affected here. That will make it easier on me when it's closing time. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 15:59, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
- Topics to be merged: Wikipedia:Featured topics/Brandenburg class battleships, Wikipedia:Featured topics/Kaiser Friedrich III class battleships, Wikipedia:Featured topics/Wittelsbach class battleships, Wikipedia:Featured topics/Braunschweig class battleships, Wikipedia:Featured topics/Deutschland class battleships, Wikipedia:Featured topics/Nassau class battleships, Wikipedia:Featured topics/Helgoland class battleships, Wikipedia:Featured topics/Kaiser class battleships, Wikipedia:Featured topics/König class battleships, Wikipedia:Featured topics/Bayern class battleships, and Wikipedia:Featured topics/Scharnhorst class battleships
- Ok; if you can, note which topics will be affected here. That will make it easier on me when it's closing time. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 15:59, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Comment, apparently SMS Ostfriesland has some broken references. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 02:39, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
- What do you mean? There's only one online reference and it's working fine. Parsecboy (talk) 12:49, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
- Support the single-topic version, and merge in all the smaller topics. Ucucha 23:59, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
- Support the single topic and merger of smaller topics. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:15, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
- Support the single topic. I wasn't a fan of having the different topics in the ultimate form, although I think that worked great for the development of the entire topic. I may have to steal that idea for the hurricane project. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:01, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- Support single topic. Gage (talk) 05:31, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Just to note that I will likely do this promotion in two parts. The first will be to cut the 11 merged topics and turn them into former ones, the second will be promotion of the big topic. It may be over the course of a couple days, so don't panic if it looks like I'm just removing a bunch of topics. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 15:52, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Consensus to promote as single topic, will handle merging issues tonight and officially promote tomorrow night. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 02:32, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
- Closed with consensus to promote as good topic. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 02:55, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Supplementary nominations
[edit]
- Contributor(s): Cyclonebiskit, Hurricanehink, Mitchazenia
All of the articles now are good. I can't see any of the other storms getting articles with how weak and dumpy they are. Thus, I'm happy to nominate this batch of articles for GT. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:34, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
- Support. All looks good. Ucucha 00:10, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- Support, no complaints here. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 10:41, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- Support Good work. Gage (talk) 23:00, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
- Closed with consensus to promote as good topic. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 04:38, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
- Contributor(s): Adabow
I have worked on these articles since late last year, and I believe that the articles cover the topic of Usher's fifth studio album comprehensively. The tour was not huge, so it is included in the album article. --Adabow (talk · contribs) 21:55, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
- Support. Looking good to me in general. However, there should ideally be a navigation template uniting the articles in the topic. I assume the tour is not notable for an article of its own. Ucucha 00:15, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- Support Looks fine to me. YE Pacific Hurricane 18:15, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
- Closed with consensus to promote as good topic. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 03:33, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
- Contributor(s): Ucucha
Since the 1980s, weird teeth have been turning up in ancient rocks in South America. We don't quite know what they are—most likely multituberculates—and this series therefore contains a lot of uncertainties. Possibly it covers two quite unrelated groups of animals. All articles are GAs (thanks to the reviewing efforts of Sasata, Casliber, J Milburn, and Visionholder), so this is a GT nomination. --Ucucha 01:48, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- Support Although {{Gondwanatheria nav}} has Trapalcotherium third and LACM 149371 last. Is there a reason for the ordering? The topic and navbox should probably be consistent. Adabow (talk · contribs) 04:27, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks. I've changed the navbox, as I don't see a good reason to use anything other than alphabetical ordering. Ucucha 12:13, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- Comment: I think it's worth pointing out that the formatting of the references is inconsistent between the articles. Ferugliotheriidae and Ferugliotherium have the more standard quoted articles, italic journals, while the other three use a different style (which I seem to remember is a style used in a journal you read). If we're bringing these together as one topic, consistency would be nice- I'd go with the former, as it's what the MoS recommends. J Milburn (talk) 15:27, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
- I changed the citation style I use on articles about halfway through this topic. I don't think there's a requirement for articles in an FT to be consistent with each other as regards references, and WP:CITEHOW says we shouldn't be changing reference styles. Ucucha 15:30, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Would prefer another comment or two on this one. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 03:44, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
- Closed with consensus to promote as good topic. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 02:39, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
.jpg)
I am nominating this for good topic because after a lot of work, I think that I can say that it meets the criteria. Thank you for any comments, CrowzRSA 22:22, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- Comment If this topic is promoted, Featured topics/Slayer studio albums would need to be removed. Songs should be removed, as they can be included as subtopics of the individual albums. Adabow (talk · contribs) 22:45, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- But this is a discography, and it should include singles and notable songs. CrowzRSA 22:48, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- Personally, I think that it should be a Slayer albums topic (overview), and singles be hosted in albums' subtopics, but I will wait for others' opinions. Adabow (talk · contribs) 00:38, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
- But the discography article covers the following:
- —Studio albums
- —Live albums
- —Extended plays
- —Box sets
- —Singles
- —Soundtracks
- —Music videos
- —Videos
- Since soundtracks really don't have much to do with the band, I didn't include them, but since Singles are covered on the page, and were releases, they should be included in the topic. CrowzRSA 01:30, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
- Well, the current discography topics don't include singles. And since only two albums had them (both FTs themselves) they could be subtopics (like No Doubt's topic has one). igordebraga ≠ 17:39, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- Support if and only if "Raining Blood", "Angel of Death", "Eyes of the Insane", and "Jihad" are excluded. Those belong to Slayer singles discography. Crowz you are arguing notability, but "Hate Worldwide", "Serenity in Murder" and "Seasons in the Abyss" are notables enough to have their own articles. This topic should be albums: studio, EPs, compilations, live, and video albums ۞ Tbhotch™ & (ↄ), Problems with my English? 01:11, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Can we get a couple more comments here? Wizardman Operation Big Bear 19:15, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Comment: Would it be a good idea to have the studio albums be a subtopic in here? It'd cut this topic almost in half but it would keep the other one intact. I don't have an opinion either way on that. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 19:17, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Note Someone nominated Live Intrusion for deletion. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 12:04, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Comment There's a few dead links in a couple of articles. See the book report for details. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 12:05, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
- This is a pretty impressive scoreboard. It seems that all notable items in the discography of this band are GA or FA, so it would make the most sense to me to have a single topic and merge in all the smaller subtopics, as we might be going to do with the German battlecruisers above. That way, all the related stuff is together. Ucucha 00:31, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- Support despite preferring subtopics than basically repeating the two FTs by including the songs, an impressive piece of work. igordebraga ≠ 15:03, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
- Closed with consensus to promote as good topics. The studio albums topic, as well as the two other FTs (Christ Illusion and Reign in Blood) will be merged in. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 03:12, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
West Coast Express
[edit]
- Contributor(s): Leech44 - Orlandkurtenbach
Ice hockey lines consist of three forwards (a center, left wing & right wing). Though it is common for line combinations to be changed including in game, productive lines will stay together. If a line is successful or popular enough it is not uncommon for the line to receive a nickname. The West Coast Express was one such line that played for the Vancouver Canucks. I have nominated this for a Good Topic based on the fact that all three member articles of the line are GA as well as the article about the line itself. I feel that this is very similar to the wrestling tag team GTs that already exist. Thanks for your time.--Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 15:12, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
- So I'm apparently a complete idiot, could some one move the page from Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/.../archive1 to the appropriate name Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/West Coast Express/archive1?
Sorry for the inconvenience, but before I finish the next steps I'm going to wait so that things aren't missed after a change in pages.--Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 15:21, 22 June 2011 (UTC)- Think I managed to get it right. ;) -DJSasso (talk) 16:26, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you for the assistance.--Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 17:54, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
- Support - can't see any issues -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:52, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
- Support. Makes sense to me. It would be nice to have some sort of navigation template linking the four articles. Ucucha 00:17, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for the support. As for the template WP:ice hockey is pretty particular when it comes to templates and if I were to create one for these four articles I know it would be deleted.--Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 02:58, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- Closed with consensus to promote as good topic. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 03:45, 10 August 2011 (UTC)