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

First Persian invasion of Greece

3 articles

Battle of Marathon

Siege of Eretria

I am nominating this as a good topic. It is intended as a sister topic to Second Persian invasion of Greece. There are only three articles, but these articles cover all the aspects of the campaign.

For anyone interested in how this might develop, I eventually intend to make a Greco-Persian Wars super-topic. In theory would have the two Persian invasions as articles and sub-topics, alongside the Ionian Revolt article. It was suggested in the good topic review of Second Persian invasion of Greece that I include articles on some of the commanders. In practice, I think I would include these biographical articles in the Greco-Persian Wars super-topic, rather than in the sub-topics, since these commanders were usually involved in more than one campaign. MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 11:33, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support - well done - rst20xx (talk) 18:39, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Z gin der 2009-04-15T23:01Z (UTC)
Support - Excellent work. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 22:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - as good as the Second Persian invasion of Greece one—Chris! _ct 01:55, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Nice work. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:09, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support No problems for me. Mm40 (talk) 16:38, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I was wondering whether it would be appropriate to add the commanders to this topic. If people like Miltiades the Younger and Datis are mostly notable for their involvement in this invasion, would it be best if they were included in this topic? --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 22:21, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the topic looks complete as it is. Articles about the people involved can be added in a supplementary nomination.—Chris! _ct 00:35, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, that's not how good topics works. If the commanders are in the scope of the topic, they need to be added now. Supplementary nominations are only for subjects that get a new article after the topic is promoted or for topics that change their scope. To not include the commanders I think this topic would have to limit its scope and rename itself "Battles of the First Persian invasion of Greece" rather than being about the entire event. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 01:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Arctic Gnome I think you're right, unfortunately however we've set a bit of a precedent of promoting these battles-only topics - there are already 3 FTs and 2 GTs. Maybe existing topics need to have their scopes re-examined too - rst20xx (talk) 10:50, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Arctic.gnome: I had never had a supplementary nomination before, so I didn't know exactly how it works. I suppose you are right.—Chris! _ct 23:25, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think that by adding people only involved with this campaign and not adding others it would create a gap. Z gin der 2009-05-03T18:04Z (UTC)

If we're not going to add the generals, maybe we should change all the titles of these topics to "Battles of...". --142.162.22.70 (talk) 00:51, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That would be a change that requires a lot of edits, but I'd support it - rst20xx (talk) 10:34, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We wouldn't have to go through all of the talk pages and rename things, it could be done just by changing the displayed title on the FT boxes to the new scope. I guess it would be best to just start a new discussion on the project talk page about the renaming. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 00:19, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree (sorry :/), if we did that then it wouldn't change the names of the topics listed on the talk pages of any of the articles in the topics. And if we change THOSE, then we'd have to change everything... I don't think changing everything is an argument against and I'd be happy to help but we would have to do it - rst20xx (talk) 01:19, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(starting back over here) Whilst this is my nomination, my (mostly) unbiased opinion on this (and other similar FTs/GTs) is as follows. I think the good topic criteria are being misinterpreted here. Yes, a good topic should be comprehensive. But does it need to include every possible article on the subject to qualify as a good topic? — I don't think so.

b) The articles have a clear similarity with each other under a well-defined topical scope.

c) All articles in the topic are linked together, preferably using a template, and share a common :category or super-category.

d) There is no obvious gap (missing or stub article) in the topic. A topic must not cherry pick :only the best articles to become featured together.

Nowhere do these criteria state that every possible connected subject is addressed. The articles in this topic (and the other other military campaign topics) fulfill the above criteria. Adding in articles on commanders actually somewhat weakens the topic, because the articles are not similar to the other articles, do not share the same category, and are not linked to the other articles by a template. Furthermore, 'Battle of X' is clearly a non-overlapping subset of 'Campaign of Y'. However, 'Commander Z' may overlap with other campaigns, and other completely different topics, like 'Commanders of W'.

Furthermore, to rename the topics 'Battles of campaign Y' etc, would be to ignore the fact that this is a) not the name of the main articles in the topics, b) is not the scope of the main articles, c) is not the scope of the topic. The scope of the main articles (and therefore the topics) is to provide a history of the campaign (not just the battles). However, to provide this history comprehensively in no way requires biographies of the commanders. MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 11:06, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For a), there is no rule saying that the topic has to have the same name as the lead article, and there are several topics that have different names for their scope and lead. For b) and c), what do you consider the scope to be? I don't see a way of making it broader than just the battles but narrow enough that it does not include the commanders. If the topic is the invasion in general, then we have to ask whether a reader would have a well-rounded knowledge of the invasion without reading anything about the commanders. If, on the other hand, the topic was specifically limited to the battles, than by definition the topic would be complete as it currently is. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 18:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reading back what I wrote, I think I may have slightly overstated my case, though I do still feel that commanders, in general, aren't necessary. However, I can see that a topic like "Hannibal's invasion of Italy" would clearly require a biography of Hannibal. Or any campaign where the result was strongly influenced by the personality of the commander (Napoleonic wars, for example).

"If the topic is the invasion in general, then we have to ask whether a reader would have a well-rounded knowledge of the invasion without reading anything about the commanders." I think that nicely summarises the dilemma in this kind of 'campaign' topic. Whilst I understand that the question was asked rhetorically, it actually makes sense as a criterion for the inclusion/exclusion of commanders. Can a reader have a well-rounded understanding of the campaign without understanding the personality of the commanders?

In this particular topic, I would argue that knowledge of the commanders adds little to the topic. Of the Persian commanders, Datis and Artaphernes (son of Artaphernes) we know almost nothing (there being no extant Persian sources) except a few fragments from Herodotus. And what there is adds nothing to the reader's understanding of the campaign. On the Greek side, the only commanders whose names we know are Callimachus, who is known only from Herodotus's account of Marathon, and Miltiades the Younger. Both these generals only fought at Marathon, and there is some debate as to whether Miltiades was in actually in command at Marathon - this may have been propaganda spread by his son Cimon. Although Miltiades is better attested than the others, there is still little to say, and this would not greatly enhance the reader's understanding of the campaign.

So, in summary, I still don't think that this topic requires biographies. This isn't because I don't want to write biographies — I wrote this biography of Themistocles for possible inclusion the the 'Second Persian invasion of Greece' topic — I just don't think they add anything here. I do however concede that the general argument I made above, for all similar topics, may not be valid. MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 07:03, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Close as consensus to promote --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 06:23, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yorktown class gunboats

Yorktown class gunboats

4 articles

Yorktown

Concord

Bennington

I believe that this topic meets all of the criteria to become a Good Topic. This is about a late 19th- and early 20th-century ship class of gunboats for the United States Navy. The class article is the main article and includes summaries of the three articles covering the only three ships of the class. — Bellhalla (talk) 10:40, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support assuming that USS Petrel (PG-2) isn't part of the Yorktown class. :-) —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 18:53, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No. Petrel was a unique gunboat about half the displacement of the Yorktowns and about 50 feet (15 m) shorter. — Bellhalla (talk) 20:54, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I figured. Great work on these articles! —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 01:15, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 04:52, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - very nice work, Belhalla! Parsecboy (talk) 10:52, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - rst20xx (talk) 12:40, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Z gin der 2009-05-01T16:23Z (UTC)
Support - Excellent work. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 17:28, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Chris! _ct 18:10, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support TomStar81 (Talk) 07:59, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Great work as always. A future featured topic, perhaps? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Close as consensus to promote --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 19:06, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Boston campaign

7 articles

Powder Alarm
Battles of Lexington and Concord

Battle of Chelsea Creek
Battle of Bunker Hill

Siege of Boston
Fortification of Dorchester Heights

I believe this grouping qualifies as a Good Topic. All of the subarticles are listed in {{Campaignbox American Revolutionary War: Boston}}, and the main article's content covers all of them in summary form. Magic♪piano 00:05, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support All important sub-topics are included. Z gin der 2009-04-27T15:54Z (UTC)
Support meets the criteria —Chris! _ct 21:50, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Nice work. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 19:02, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - excellent work, complete topic, satisfies criteria. CHeers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:48, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Meets all the criteria. Good work, magic! — Bellhalla (talk) 10:57, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Close as consensus to promote --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 00:22, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]