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

Phantom Power[edit]

Good topic nomination. Lead album Phantom Power, its two singles, "Golden Retriever" and "Hello Sunshine", plus Slow Life, an EP whose lead track is drawn from the album, and Phantom Phorce, a remix album consisting of tracks from Phantom Power are all good articles. Cavie78 (talk) 12:12, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Phantom Power

5 articles

"Golden Retriever"

Slow Life

"Hello Sunshine"

Phantom Phorce

Support - a very good topic. I really appreciate you including the EP and remix album, that's what I like to see :) rst20xx (talk) 16:19, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Excellent work, especially on Phantom Power. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 17:33, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Close with consensus to promote - the last of 8 closes in a row :O but after a day of work, that's the backlog flushed - rst20xx (talk) 17:36, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Simpsons main cast members[edit]

The Simpsons main cast members

7 articles

Co-nominators: Scorpion0422, Gran2 and Theleftorium.

This is a topic for all of the main cast members of The Simpsons (please note that Hank Azaria and Harry Shearer may make it to FA some day, so the topic could be switched to FT, if promoted). I know some users may say that we are just selecting the cast members and not including the minor ones, but these six are undisputedly the only main cast members. They have been credited on every episode (well, except Azaria, who became a main cast member in season 2), and the Fox promotional website only includes those six [1][2]. Anyway, enjoy. -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 17:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Nergaal (talk) 21:58, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Keep it up. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 14:36, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - I am a bit uneasy with the scope reduction from the regular cast to the main cast, especially when adding the rest of the regular cast (both former and current) would only add a further 11 articles to bring the total to 18, which is not too big for a topic. However these 6 certainly do form the main cast of the show, and as such, while I feel this topic needlessly scope narrows, I also feel that it has a well defined scope, and hence I vote neutral - 21:47, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Support. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:01, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question The nominator makes a good argument about why these cast members are more important than any others. However, I wonder whether there were any cast members who were very important in the early series but would not be credited now. One name that immediately comes to mind is Phil Hartman, who played key characters on the show but would not now be featured on the website due to the actor's death. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 02:01, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I suppose the simple answer to your question is: no. But, there were some minor changes in the first few seasons. For example, in a couple very early episodes, several now recurring characters were voiced by Christopher Collins. However, Collins was never given anything more than an "also starring" credit. This is similar to Phil Hartman. He was a regular voice for seven seasons, but he was never credited as anything more than a guest star. However, if Hartman is considered a main cast member, why not Tress MacNeille or Pamela Hayden, who are the most common non-main cast members, or even Maggie Roswell, Russi Taylor or Marcia Wallace, who (similar to Hartman) voice at least one regular character? The simplest thing is to stick with the credited main cast, and those six are the only ones. -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 02:18, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support yet another step on turning this into Homerpedia... igordebraga ≠ 18:10, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Ottava Rima (talk) 01:01, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Strong Oppose~~ List of cast members of The Simpsons was promoted in 07 back when standards were very different. It does not meet current standards, and the lead is in violation of WP:LEAD. These problems should really be addressed. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:39, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess subtlety isn't one of your strong suits, is it? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:42, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I take it that you didn't bother to read the requirements first? The list clearly doesn't meet FL standards for content, and there is a huge MoS violation with the Lead. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:47, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Then nominate it for removal, and give me some better things to go on than "doesn't meet FL standards for content". I'm assuming that the "huge MoS violation with the Lead" you speak of is the ammount of non-summarizing text and references? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:49, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - That would be "5 Style. It complies with the Manual of Style and its supplementary pages." Normally, FL comply with this by having detailed information in the list itself. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:56, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Actually, that's not always true because sometimes such information doesn't really have a place in any of the defined sections, and there is no need for an entire section for a small paragraph. Now, could you please give me some guidance so I will know exactly what you think needs fixing? -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 00:01, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        WP:LEAD is 100% clear that there cannot be any original information in a lead. You could create a section called "history" or "background" at the top of the list and then summarize in the lead (i.e. move the current lead down into that new section). Now, your page is 23k, so, according to Wikipedia:LEAD#Length, you should only have two paragraphs in the lead. I am sure that you can easily summarize it into two paragraphs. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:05, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        So you're strong opposing solely because the lead is a little long... And yet, this isn't important enough for you to nominate the list for removal, just important enough for you to oppose this. I'd also like to point out that #length is just a suggestion. -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 00:09, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        If you want, I can put up the list for removal. However, the result in either case would be for you to do the above. Hell, I could do the above in 10-15 minutes. Why don't you just divert your efforts into improving your page instead of fighting against any changes? Ottava Rima (talk) 00:15, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm not fighting changes, I'm trying to get you to be more specific. I've moved one paragraph into a section, anything else? You also have to remember that this is a list, not an article, so not everything in WP:LEAD applies. -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 00:19, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        This is the specifics to leads in lists, which doesn't contradict anything in WP:LEAD about the lead only being a summary of content and specified to a certain size. The content at the top of the list is not specific to explaining the list, so it would have to go into its own section and then summarized in the lead (i.e. salaries and other such things). Ottava Rima (talk) 00:31, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There, I have moved most of the content out of the lead. Does it meet your standards? -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 00:43, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. You have to admit, the page looks -a lot- better than what it did, no? Ottava Rima (talk) 01:01, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, make sure to remove one of the first two sentences in Background. There is a redundancy. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:02, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well as the original 'writer' of the list, I wouldn't really say it looks "a lot" better ;) but it is certainly an improvement. For the record I never really liked the list that much and didn't really expect it to pass when it did. Gran² 16:52, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Would love to see this become a FT.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 14:27, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Is there a reason behind the order in which they appear in the box above? I would have expected them to be alphabetized, but if there is another rationale for the order, I'm open to that. This question isn't enough to get me to oppose, but I want to make sure there is a reason for the oder of cast members.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 14:29, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's the order that they are listed in the end credits. It's very minor though, and can be switched to alphabetical order. -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 15:41, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  I'm fine with that, as long as there is a rational reason for the order... when I saw that it wasn't alphabetical, credit order was my guess. I do like, whether it is a coincidence or design, the fact that the FA is in the center top row. Helps it to stand out.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 16:21, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is probably better if this explanatory note is actually written in the article right before the table. Nergaal (talk) 05:09, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Close with consensus to promote - topic number 7 for WP:DOH, with number 8 currently nominated as well! rst20xx (talk) 16:06, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ring Line[edit]

4 articles

I am nominating the Ring Line of the Oslo Metro as a good article topic because I feel it meets the criteria. The line consists of three stations, which are the only features along the line with articles. Self-nom by Arsenikk ^(talk) 19:12, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support - topic is complete—Chris! _ct 06:40, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I am not really familiar with train line articles on the Wiki but am slightly confused by {{Ring Line}}. What are all the other stops in that diagram and how do they relate to the Ring Line? rst20xx (talk) 16:36, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
...nevermind, I'm being silly. It seems that the 3 stations listed form the Ring Line and then the ring in the name is formed by the fact that the trains go on from there in a loop. Is it standard practice for templates like {{Ring Line}} to show other train lines? It might be worth stating at the top of the template what stops belong to what lines because as it stands I think the template is confusing. Anyway, support - rst20xx (talk) 16:42, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Although actually the articles for the other stations suggest further involvement in the Ring Line... I think some clarification is needed throughout, I'm somewhat confused - rst20xx (talk) 16:47, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ - sorry to flip-flop so much but I'm changing my vote because I think my concerns about the inconsistencies in the family of articles need addressing - rst20xx (talk) 23:37, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Part of this confusion may have arisen because the Ring Line only connects to branches (the Grorud and Sognsvann Lines), that together with the Common Tunnel create a ring. Only the actual 5 km connection is called the Ring Line (making up about a third of the full circle). I have now rearranged the maps, so the map in the infobox only shows the Ring Line, while the old map has been moved to the service section to show how the trains running on the Ring Line connect to the Common Tunnel and other lines. I have also copyedited some of the other station articles on the Songsvann and Grorud Line to make it clear that they are not part of the Ring Line. This misleading information was probably added by editors in good faith, beliving that any station that makes up the circle is on the Ring Line.

The Oslo Metro has a somewhat different naming scheme than many other metros: There are ten (named) lines, and each station is located only on one line. The Ring Line is by far the shortest and smallest of these. There are six services, 1 through 6, that operate on at least two lines plus the Common Tunnel. Therefore, a line is not the same as a service (unlike, for instance, the London Underground or the Paris Metro). Put another way, if all ten lines and all stations were brought up to GA, then each line could be a topic, and each station would be in only one topic, even though some stations are served by multiple services (train numbers). Arsenikk ^(talk) 10:06, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that's very helpful, thanks, but what about Carl Berners plass and Ullevål stadion? These two stations appear to be at the end of the Ring Line, connecting it with other lines, and indeed Carl Berners plass currently states this to be the case - rst20xx (talk) 12:33, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ullevål stadion and Carl Berners plass are located on the Sognsvann and Grorud Line, respectively. In both cases, the lines split north of (i.e. after) the stations, and they are therefore only on the one line. On the Sognsvann Line, the split happens just before reaching Berg (the next station), while I don't know the length on the Grorud Line. For instance, there were no modifications of either station when the new line was built. I have made all the line maps like this, showing the final station that is not on the line (see for instance Kolsås Line which contains one closed plus the current first station on the Røa Line). If other people find this very confusing, I can change it, but I felt that it helps orient the reader (of course, I know all this stuff, so how am I to know what the reader thinks). Arsenikk ^(talk) 20:51, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK I think this change helps, it's somewhat clearer now. Support reinstated above, sorry to flip-flop so much - rst20xx (talk) 21:58, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~I would~~ support but I am getting confused by the two maps present in the main article. Why are all the other stations listed in the same way as the 3 stations if they are not part of the line? Can their relationship to the present line be made more clear in the present lead article templates??? Nergaal (talk) 04:51, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the important point here is that unlike in other metro systems, in the Oslo Metro, lines run into other lines. So in most networks you'll have one service on each line, here you have many services each travelling along multiple lines. I think the fact that the whole diagram forms a ring which is also the name of this one line (which is only part of the ring in the diagram) and also, the descriptions of the stations are interleaved, only further confuses matters. Anyway, I have inserted a small portion of text in the bottom of the second diagram which is the best I can do to explain things - rst20xx (talk) 16:34, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But why aren't the three stations bolded, or the rest italicised, or some different color to easily differentiate from the other lines? Nergaal (talk)

I just realised Arsenikk hasn't edited since May 24! Well I bolded the appropriate station names for him - rst20xx (talk) 21:03, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nergaal, does the bolding sufficiently address your concerns? I would like to promote this topic, in spite of Arsenikk's continued absense!, but want to make sure you're happy first - rst20xx (talk) 10:51, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, it looks ok now. Nergaal (talk) 04:49, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ Support. The improvment was done to which image? The "routemap" in the infobox iswas still confusing (i bolded the stations now). Other than that that these articles make up a distinct topic and are all good quality, so should be a GT.Yob Mod 11:29, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh sorry I bolded the stations in the second and not the first routemap. Good change - rst20xx (talk) 14:11, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Close with consensus to promote - rst20xx (talk) 14:29, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

O'Brien class destroyers[edit]

O'Brien class destroyers

7 articles

O'Brien

Nicholson

Winslow

McDougal

Cushing

Ericsson

I believe that this topic meets all of the criteria to become a Good Topic. This is about a one of the United States Navy's classes of destroyers built prior to World War I. The class article is the main article and includes summaries of the articles covering all six ships of the class. — Bellhalla (talk) 23:48, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Nergaal (talk) 03:50, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - keep 'em coming! rst20xx (talk) 10:53, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Excellent work. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 17:42, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pres N 15:08, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - This is a no brainer. - DSachan (talk) 08:16, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Close with consensus to promote - yet another topic for Bellhalla ;) rst20xx (talk) 12:28, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Grade I listed buildings in Runcorn[edit]

Grade I listed buildings in Runcorn

3 articles

Norton Priory

Halton Castle

I consider that the articles satisfy the criteria for a Good Topic. They cover all the listed buildings in the town of Runcorn. Two of these are listed Grade I and both are GAs. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:21, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I reformated your nomination into a box and picked an image for now; hope you don't mind. I would have thought that the list should be the lead, not Runcorn (which I don't think should be in the topic, as it's outside its scope). I'm also wondering whether there's "cherry-picking" here: I know that the two articles are the two Grade I buildings (top grade of buildings of special architectural, historical or cultural significance, for non-UK editors), but many of the other 57 listed buildings mentioned in the list have articles that aren't included here. Perhaps the title of the topic should be "Grade I listed buildings in Runcorn" - or is that incompatible with the much wider scope of the list? Bencherlite ^Talk 10:55, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing the template, and the image - which is fine. This is my first nomination for a GT so perhaps I have not "got" the criteria yet. I included Runcorn to give some context to the topic, but I take your point. The cherries picked themselves, as it were. There are only two Grade I listed buildings in the town and none of the articles on the other buildings come anywhere near GA (yet). Anyway I would be happy with your suggestion to leave Runcorn out, make the list the lead, and change the title to the above. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 13:32, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose the topic as listed is clearly incomplete. Nergaal (talk) 14:47, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: while the overall topic looks much better now, I still oppose because to me this seems a somewhat forced topic and also one that has an extremely awkward name. Nergaal (talk) 05:03, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - IMO Bencherlite is right on all counts. Criteria 1.b) says that "The articles have a clear similarity with each other under a well-defined topical scope." This topic firstly runs into some trouble here in that the scope of the lead article (Runcorn) does not match the scope of the topic (Listed buildings in Runcorn). Changing the lead article to List of listed buildings in Runcorn (and removing Runcorn entirely) would alleviate this problem, but then the topic would secondly run afoul of criteria 1.d), "A topic must not cherry pick only the best articles to become featured together." Sure, the grade 1 listed buildings are the most important of the listed buildings, but they are only 2 out of 59, and the scope of the topic as it stands is purportedly all the listed buildings. Therefore, the topic should include all the listed buildings that merit articles (which I suspect would be all of them?).
Again, following Bencherlite's comment, one possible way round this problem would be to change the scope of the topic to "Grade I listed buildings in Runcorn". If you also changed the lead article to List of listed buildings in Runcorn, then this would somewhat fit - the scope of the lead article would still be much bigger than the scope of the topic, but doing this kind of scope-narrowing on lists is not unprecedented - look at the "Albums" "topics, for example Powderfinger albums, which has a similar scope narrowing from its lead, Powderfinger discography, an article which obviously also covers singles, EPs, etc., to just covering the albums for the topic.
If you make these changes I think I would probably stay neutral the topic, because to narrow down to just the 2 grade I listed buildings seems a larger and more arbitrary narrowing than to narrow down to just albums. But if you did otherwise I'm afraid I'd definitely oppose here - rst20xx (talk) 14:55, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PS I lived in Lymm til I was 3 years old ;) rst20xx (talk) 15:01, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I ~~would~~ will support a topic as outlined by Bencherlite and Rst20xx. I think Grade one listing is qualitatively different enough to merit topics containing only those rather than all graded buildings in an area. I don't think the number of grade-1 buildings is a problem, as an album topic of only 2 albums would pass, and any such listed building topic has to be split somehow due to the number of articles (which some discographies cannot claim).Yob Mod 15:06, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks folks for your comments and advice. I have changed the title and deleted Runcorn (but how do you get rid of that "Column3" thing?). Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:57, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's gone, just by leaving it as a blank parameter. Bencherlite ^Talk 20:27, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support as amended. Yobmod makes a good point (in fact, more than one): Grade I buildings are a natural and non-arbitrary subset of listed buildings, and a list plus two articles is enough to qualify for a topic. It is comparable to limiting a discography topic to albums only, so there is precedent for this restriction of the topic to an appropriate sub-set of the lead article/list. Looking at the list, many of the lower-level listed buildings are never going to get their own article anyway, let alone one of GA status (e.g "Walls, piers and railings, St Paul's Health Centre, High Street"(!)). Bencherlite ^Talk 20:27, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(You sure? See current GANs Entranceways at Main Street at Lamarck Drive and Smallwood Drive and Entranceway at Main Street at Roycroft Boulevard, both of which are NRHPs. Similarly I suspect all graded buildings (objects?) might be in with a shot! They must have some history to them in order to get listed! For example, the walls, piers and railings "originally formed the entrance to a Methodist chapel" so I suspect they would actually be lumped together in an article about that chapel! rst20xx (talk) 21:01, 22 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Support - Actually I will support, I think Yobmod was right. The topic certainly needs to be split somehow and this is the best way to do it. (Also I have piped the lead to match the title, as is standard practice, hope you don't mind) - rst20xx (talk) 20:47, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again everyone for advice, recommendations and amendments - all very much appreciated by a novice in this area. Incidentally does it now satisfy the criteria for FT rather than GT? Peter I. Vardy (talk) 10:06, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, because FTs require 2 featured items minimum, and this only has 1 - rst20xx (talk) 11:49, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Close as consensus to promote. Nergaal's concerns about this being a forced topic (ie cherry-picked) do not seem held by others since the re-name, and were the only concern. If we don't allow splitting based on grades, no graded-building topic could ever be featured, which would not be good for the project.Yob Mod 17:09, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that as of now, this has become a featured topic due to 2 of 3 articles being featured in the topic. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 19:57, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Paul London and Brian Kendrick[edit]

Paul London and Brian Kendrick

4 articles

Paul London

Brian Kendrick

Ashley Massaro

NiciVampireHeart, Nikki311, and I are nominating Paul London and Brian Kendrick as a Good Topic. The group consisted of the tag team Paul London and Brian Kendrick, and their manager Ashley Massaro. The lead article (London and Kendrick), as well as the individual members' articles (Paul London, Brian Kendrick, and Ashley Massaro) are all Good articles. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 18:46, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Passes all the criteria.--WillC 16:53, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - topic is complete—Chris! _ct 06:42, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I can see a lot of this type of topic coming down the pipeline :S Keep it up! rst20xx (talk) 16:30, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pres N 15:08, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Closing as consensus to promoteYobMod 15:21, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tucker class destroyers[edit]

Tucker class destroyers

7 articles

Tucker

Conyngham

Porter

Wadsworth

Jacob Jones

Wainwright

I believe that this topic meets all of the criteria to become a Good Topic. This is about a one of the United States Navy's classes of destroyers built prior to World War I. The class article is the main article and includes summaries of the articles covering all six ships of the class. — Bellhalla (talk) 14:28, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support - meets all the criteria. Man, I wish I could write articles like you can ;) —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 19:49, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - topic is complete—Chris! _ct 06:40, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Destroyers defeating the submarines at the moment. - DSachan (talk) 08:22, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - good stuff - rst20xx (talk) 16:22, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Nice work. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 21:31, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I am pleased that these old destroyers are getting some of the attention they deserve (even though I'm still a sucker for the battleships). -MBK₀₀₄ on the iPhone 01:39, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nergaal (talk) 04:46, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Closing as consensus to promoteYobMod 13:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]

2008–09 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team[edit]

2008–09 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team

4 articles

John Beilein

Manny Harris

DeShawn Sims

I am nominating this topic because I feel it is a complete topic. There are only two notable players on the team by standard interpretation of notability. It is not uncommon for fanatical fans to create articles for most regular players (players in the regular rotation) or most starters for a college basketball team. However, I believe the standard for college athlete notability is approximately those players who might reasonably be expected to become professional athletes. In the Big Ten Conference and most "power conferences", I believe the borderline on notability is approximately those players who have been selected to the All-conference team. Only two Michigan players show up on lists of professional prospects. These two players and the coach make up the entirety of the list of subarticles at this time.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 12:51, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Nomination fails 3a. Could be nominated as a Good Topic, as it meets 3b. cmadler (talk) 12:47, 19 May 2009 (UTC)~~[reply]
- In case you did not notice, this is being nominated as a good topic. That is why it is listed at Wikipedia:Featured_topic_candidates#Good_topic_nominations--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:44, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry, I followed your link from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Michigan to Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/2008–09 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team‎. There was no indication that it was a good topic nomination; having never previously participated in the good/featured topic process, it looked like a featured topic nomination. My previous comment is withdrawn; this appears to be a complete topic that meets the criteria: support. cmadler (talk) 14:48, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - nice work! Of course if any of the other players do go on to become notable, their articles will need adding to the topic at that time, but this is good as is - rst20xx (talk) 16:21, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - now that someone !voted - I wasn't sure if this topic is viable at first given that not all players are included—Chris! _ct 18:19, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Meets all criteria. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:20, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Close as consensus to promote --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 22:17, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lights and Sounds[edit]

Lights and Sounds

3 articles

"Lights and Sounds"

"Rough Landing, Holly"

Timmeh and I are nominating Lights and Sounds, which just so happens to be the fifth studio album by American pop punk band Yellowcard. Aside from the album, its two released singles are good articles. I believe it meets the GT criteria. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 14:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support - rst20xx (talk) 11:40, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
support - Yup, all's good in Yellowcard-mania-land. ceranthor 21:54, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Z gin der 2009-05-18T12:57Z (UTC)
Support - pile-on vote, can't see any issues -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:05, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would prefer a clearer name for the topic,i.e. "Lights and Sounds (album)". Nergaal (talk) 03:52, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Close as consensus to promote - Nergaal, I agree that the name is misleading, but this has to follow the precedent of the other albums. Maybe we should look into changing all of the album topic titles. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 14:01, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]