Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/Featured log/July 2012
Good topic candidates: view - edit - history
The X-Files (season 6)[edit]
"Alpha"- "Trevor"
- "Milagro"
- "The Unnatural"
- "Three of a Kind"
- "Field Trip"
- "Biogenesis"
- Contributor(s): Gen. Quon, Trust Is All You Need
I believe this topic meets the requirements as it is a listing of all the episodes that aired during the television series' sixth season, which limits it to a well-defined scope. The articles follow a solid formation and bear close structural resemblance to each other. In addition, the individual episode pages read as clearly related articles meant to be viewed in a series, but also stand on their own and present their information without expecting the reader to understand the topic as a whole.--Gen. Quon (talk) 19:25, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- Support. I reviewed a good few of these articles at GA, and they're all of a high standard. I'm happy to support this as a topic. GRAPPLE X 19:49, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- Comment, I found a couple of dead links in these and tagged them. Additionally Triangle (The X-Files), has several links to password-protected files ([lib.ku.edu]). Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 22:07, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry about the dead links, those were in articles that had already been GA'd before I started. I believe I've fixed them. Also, are links that require subscriptions bad? All the ones that are password-protected are from Databases of newspaper archives, so I can remove the url if need be.--Gen. Quon (talk) 01:49, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
- Support Can't remember if I helped with any of those, but impressive indeed. Grapple X will also be proud. igordebraga ≠ 17:42, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
- Support Reviewed a couple of these myself; impressive. Glimmer721 talk 21:43, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
- Question, though: Why are the articles bulleted? Usually : is used instead of *. Glimmer721 talk 01:42, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
- Support complete and meets the criteria. Arsenikk (talk) 15:50, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
- Comment I went through and made sure all the references had correct publishers, and I tidied the info boxes and made minor fixes to every article.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 02:43, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
- Support Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 11:18, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- Closed with consensus to promote. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 19:44, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Battleships of Greece[edit]
Another topic on the battleships of a country, this topic comprises two ships that were purchased from the US Navy and a third that was ordered from Germany but not completed due to the outbreak of World War I; a fourth ship ordered from France was also not completed, but there is not sufficient material on it to warrant an individual article. Parsecboy (talk) 11:57, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
- Support. Bit of an arduous road to get here, but I'm happy to support it after all that. GRAPPLE X 04:27, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
- Support - Good job Parsec. Thurgate (talk) 21:17, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
- Support Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:42, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
- This has been open for 2 and a half months - what's going on here? Parsecboy (talk) 15:06, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
- Closed with consensus to promote. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 19:44, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Mythology of The X-Files, Volume 2[edit]
- "Nisei"
- "731"
- "Piper Maru"
- "Apocrypha"
- "Talitha Cumi"
- "Herrenvolk"
- "Tunguska"
- "Terma"
- "Memento Mori"
- "Tempus Fugit"
- "Max"
- "Zero Sum"
- "Gethsemane"
- "Redux"
Following the successful nomination of Volume 1, I bring you Volume 2 of an eventual five-part topic series. This collection covers episodes of The X-Files ranging from 1995–1997; the scope is well-defined in the parent article as encompassing a given set of entries and each entry has been brought to GA status individually. For those who care, this collection covers the main episodes in a story arc involving a mind-altering alien virus, and probably represent the most depressing instalments in the series' run (if we don't count depressingly bad as plain depressing). Multiple recurring character deaths, a lead character with a terminal illness and a bald man in his boxer shorts all await you. --GRAPPLE X 04:24, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
- Support. Although I did contribute to some of these, I also reviewed a handful and they are of excellent quality.--Gen. Quon (talk) 17:18, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
- What percentage of all the 9 seasons are covered in the mythology topic? Nergaal (talk) 03:54, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
- Support Didn't review any of these this time, but still as well done as the first set. Glimmer721 talk 20:43, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
- Support Also can't remember if I helped any of those, but great job. (maybe I need to dive into the DVDs or buy some reference books to truly help the project...) igordebraga ≠ 13:46, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
- Support Good quality. —Hahc21 02:45, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- Closed with consensus to promote. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 19:45, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
The Office (U.S. TV series) season 1[edit]
- Contributor(s): Mastrchf91, Gen. Quon
FL + GAs = GT. --Nergaal (talk) 03:41, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
- Support. Although I did contribute to about half of these, and I beefed up quite a few, I support this overall promotion. (Also, I changed the Contributors... You missed my name, and I don't think Grapple X worked on these).--Gen. Quon (talk) 18:14, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
- Support. All seems in order. Thankfully it's Gervais-free, too. And I'll take credit if you're handing it out, haven't edited a single article here though. :P GRAPPLE X 21:54, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
- Support: Well done and complete. Glimmer721 talk 02:12, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Opposejust had a quick look at the FL, I know it's only "good topic" but it has some things that should be addressed, right now it's not up to scratch:
- Main list, there's a raw URL showing, which promotes link rot.
- For that ref (ref 17), what makes lamoltihalstein.wordpress.com a reliable source?
- It fails to meet WP:DASH per the MOS.
- References are incomplete, e.g. ref 4 has a publication date and an author which should be added. Others should be checked.
- Refs 19 and 20 are dead.
- Graph caption doesn't need a period.
- "a single-DVD" why is that hyphenated.
- TVGuide should be TV Guide right? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:48, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
- I believe I addressed everything, except the Dash concerns. What was the problem there?--Gen. Quon (talk) 04:21, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
- The "problem there" was compliance with WP:DASH. Read it, and then you'd understand, unless you need special explanation! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:53, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
- I hope that wasn't supposed to be snippy, because I wasn't trying to be snarky. I just meant where in the article are there dash violations? I'll fix them, I just can't find them.--Gen. Quon (talk) 04:28, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
- There was one on the Pilot article, but I fixed. TBrandley 04:34, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
- Support Thank you all for your good work in fixing the list. As opposed to those who think this is just about grouping stuff together for yet another star, those of you who've worked to fix issues have improved Wikipedia. Well done. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:26, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Note of course I assume that all the "supporters" have checked over the constituent members of this proposed good topic for ongoing compliance with their various criteria? I would hate to think the that just because a few green plus signs and the odd bronze star awarded a few years ago would be sufficient for all the supporters? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:08, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
- To be fair, none of the concerns raised above are hugely serious and took one editor a brief period of time to address; and I can't actually see the MOS:DASH non-compliance myself despite having looked twice. As is my usual practice when a nomination comes in here, I gave each of the GA articles a look and was satisfied; and assumed in good faith that the FL would have reached that status after having been thoroughly vetted by several editors and at least one delegate. GTCs move slowly and those with any opposition are often left longer to ensure they aren't promoted with issues left unaddressed, your four-day old concerns will be seen to long before this is considered for closing. GRAPPLE X 21:18, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
- My concerns are, just that, my concerns. This process seems little more than a "tick-in-the-box" process (i.e. all have a star/green cross, vote "support"!) and I've suddenly discovered topics being nominated with main articles which are way below current standards. If a main article/list was promoted two or three years ago (e.g. main list here was promoted in March 2008), it needs a closer look. I think this featured topic process needs analysis, especially given all the glib "support" for a topic with 14+ articles where it's clear the articles haven't been looked at at all by any of the voters. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:24, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
- Comment: This is not FLC, FLRC, FAC, FAR, GAN, or GAR. This is FTC, and here the only question should be whether a group of articles together meet the Featured topic criteria. We rely on the other Wikipedia projects to determine the quality of individual articles. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:35, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
- Comment then the process needs amending to at least ensure that the constituent parts of a topic at least still even vaguely meet their criteria. The fact you're happy to support topics whose articles contain maintenance tags is staggering and really undermines the value of a "featured topic". The Rambling Man (talk) 07:24, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
- I have no problem with you pointing out deficiencies in topic articles during the featured topic nomination process. It is always good to try to improve articles. My main point is that we can not be expected to do all the work of GAR, FLRC, and FAR here. I have always considered it a positive thing that featured topics relies on the other quality assessment projects on Wikipedia. If you'd like, we can discuss this further on the talk page. It's not really appropriate to continue this discussion on a nomination.
- Comment then the process needs amending to at least ensure that the constituent parts of a topic at least still even vaguely meet their criteria. The fact you're happy to support topics whose articles contain maintenance tags is staggering and really undermines the value of a "featured topic". The Rambling Man (talk) 07:24, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
- To be fair, none of the concerns raised above are hugely serious and took one editor a brief period of time to address; and I can't actually see the MOS:DASH non-compliance myself despite having looked twice. As is my usual practice when a nomination comes in here, I gave each of the GA articles a look and was satisfied; and assumed in good faith that the FL would have reached that status after having been thoroughly vetted by several editors and at least one delegate. GTCs move slowly and those with any opposition are often left longer to ensure they aren't promoted with issues left unaddressed, your four-day old concerns will be seen to long before this is considered for closing. GRAPPLE X 21:18, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
- Support. Meets criteria. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:37, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
- Support. Meets criteria. Thanks! Alex Douglas (talk) 14:56, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
- Closed with consensus to promote. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 19:45, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Irene class cruisers[edit]
Another class of German cruisers, these are the first protected cruisers built by the Imperial Navy. This is the first component of this planned topic. Parsecboy (talk) 16:48, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
- Support - Nice job Parsec. Thurgate (talk) 17:01, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
- Support. Good work as always. GRAPPLE X 20:50, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
- Support Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:45, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
- This has been open for over 2 months - what's going on here? Parsecboy (talk) 15:06, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
- Closed with consensus to promote. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 19:45, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Video games developed by Key[edit]
- Contributor(s): Juhachi
This topic was delisted last December because Rewrite had not become at least a GA within the grace period. Now that it finally is a GA, I'm renominating the topic. --十八 21:08, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
- Comment There is one tagged dead link in Kanon. Glimmer721 talk 00:24, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
- Support All high quality, well-written articles with proper sourcing, and I have also reviewed one myself. A great job by Juhachi.--Khanassassin ☪ 19:36, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
- Support Now this is the result of years of hard work. Great to see that Wikipedia is having very good articles on a topic which isn't even widely known to most people (outside of Japan and the otaku subculture of course). Since Key's visual novels are quite popular in Japan and their anime adaptations have also been well-received, I think it's just fitting that our articles on them are among the best. Great job and keep up the good work! By the way, should One: Kagayaku Kisetsu e be included? I know it isn't a Key game, but it was the first game which had most of Key's staff, including Jun Maeda, so it's like the predecessor game of Kanon, Air, Clannad, Little Busters! etc. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:34, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Opposelead article ("List of video games developed by Key") no longer meets the requirements of featured lists, particularly MOS:DTT. Please address this. It would be a shame to see the entire topic demoted because the lead article is no longer featured/good. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:17, 20 June 2012 (UTC)- And how exactly does it not meet MOS:DTT? I attempted to tweak the tables, but I don't know exactly what you were opposing. As for the featured list criteria, I assume your issue is only with the style, namely 5(a) as it clearly satisfies all the other criteria. --十八 01:27, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
- Table now meets MOS:DTT. I would prefer to see websites which require registration to have the refs tagged as such, but that's not vital. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:10, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
- And how exactly does it not meet MOS:DTT? I attempted to tweak the tables, but I don't know exactly what you were opposing. As for the featured list criteria, I assume your issue is only with the style, namely 5(a) as it clearly satisfies all the other criteria. --十八 01:27, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
- Support Meets the criteria. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:24, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
- Closed with consensus to promote. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 19:47, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Millennium (season 1)[edit]
- Contributor(s): Grapple X; Trust Is All You Need; Jezhotwells
An uneven season of an interesting series; I've managed to claw together enough sources to bring each episode up to GA status after discovering that the parent article had been promoted thanks to Trust Is All You Need and Jezhotwells. I also owe Gen. Quon a huge favour for reviewing 22 of these articles, which is a great commitment to the GA process. GRAPPLE X 14:16, 30 May 2012 (UTC) --GRAPPLE X 14:16, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
- Support - Although I did review a good chunk of these, all the articles are of high quality and use very good sources. Grapple did a good job with this topic.--Gen. Quon (talk) 03:36, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
- Support - Episodes are solid, seasona article seems up to date. Glimmer721 talk 23:47, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
- Support a nice piece of work and a complete topic. Arsenikk (talk) 15:53, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
- Closed with consensus to promote. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 19:48, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
1989 Pacific hurricane season[edit]
- Contributor(s): Cyclonebiskit, YE
Concerns brought up previously (quality of a sub-article) have been met and a new addition has been made to this potential Good Topic. Main article covers the basics of every storm while the sub-articles cover the most notable systems in-depth. In regards to a previous comment about the potential for Hurricane Ismael having an article, there isn't enough information available on it to warrant an article (everything is easily relayed through the season article). --Cyclonebiskit (talk) 19:55, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
- Comment The main article has beeen unstable the past few daays. Is this a concern for GT? YE Pacific Hurricane 21:50, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
- Nah, everything seems fine. Support. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:42, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
- Support - Cyclonebiskit is actually working on something? :P Nice Work. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 21:53, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
- Support - Stable, and everything's all fine and good. --TheAustinMan(Talk|Works) 21:57, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
- Support as contributor. YE Pacific Hurricane 19:33, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
- Closed with consensus to promote. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 19:48, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Fringe (season 3)[edit]
- "Entrada"
- "Marionette"
- "The Firefly"
- "Reciprocity"
- "Concentrate and Ask Again"
- "Immortality"
- "6B"
- "Subject 13"
- Contributor(s): Ruby2010
This is a complete topic that lists all 22 episodes of the third season of the television series Fringe. All 22 have attained GA status, as has the parent article. Nothing else can be added to it. It has been the work of over a year, but finally the topic is finished! Thanks in advance for your comments. --Ruby 2010/2013 00:40, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
- Support. Avoided reviewing these at GAN since I've started watching the series and didn't want to spoil it for myself. However, those I have read are of a high standard and Ruby's always put quality content together here. GRAPPLE X 00:49, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
- Support as part contributor to most of these; Ruby does an outstanding job filling in the details that I often start on these. --MASEM (t) 06:09, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
- Support. I reviewed a handful of them, I believe, and they are all excellent.--Gen. Quon (talk) 22:06, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
- Support Reviewed a couple of these myself. All of good quality. Glimmer721 talk 18:18, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
- Closed with consensus to promote. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 19:49, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Doctor Who (series 5)[edit]
This topic contains all 13 episodes as well as the main series article for Doctor Who's fifth series. This is my first endeavor at GTC and, if passed, will become WP:WHO's first GT. I have worked on this for almost a year and it contains my first television GAs. I've learned a lot through this and will try to keep the articles up to quality. Glimmer721 talk 17:35, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
- Support - Reviewed a couple myself. All really solid articles.--Gen. Quon (talk) 03:58, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
- Support - Articles are of an exemplary standard, both within the Doctor Who wikiproject and television coverage as a whole. Quality and style are consistent throughout. Eshlare (talk) 16:21, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- Support Great topic for a great series. I reviewed several of these, including the topic article. All of good quality. Ruby 2010/2013 03:25, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- Support - All articles are of consistant quality, revewed a couple of them myself. -- Matthew RD 16:12, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
- Closed with consensus to promote. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 19:49, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Pearl Jam studio albums[edit]
- Contributor(s): igordebraga ≠ 03:07, 17 June 2012 (UTC), User:-5-, User:WesleyDodds, User:Koavf
"Any generation that would pick Kurt or me as its spokesman -- that must be a pretty fucked up generation, don't you think?" - Eddie Vedder. Anyway, given Kurt's band gave the precedent for this topic, let's just say it is a topic with a clear scope: Pearl Jam's nine studio albums, all GAs, and the FT discography as the main article. --igordebraga ≠ 03:07, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Oppose based simply on the issues with the lead item, the FL. It has a maintenance tag (link rot) and is a good example of an old-fashioned featured list. It needs updating to meet current standards. At a quick glance, there are some completely unreferenced releases (e.g. Live at the Showbox, "Chloe Dancer"), some completely unreferenced charts (e.g. CAN and CAN Alt in the "Other charted songs" section), a completely unreferenced section (the "Other appearances" section), some link issues, and I believe none of the tables meet MOS:DTT, a requirement of featured lists. It would be a shame to go to the trouble of promoting this to a featured topic when the lead article needs so much work to remain featured. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:36, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
- I fixed the links and added references where I could, anything else? (also, give more input on DTT, even if on my talk page). igordebraga ≠ 14:19, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
- Nothing more to deal with quickly here. Thanks for your good work in updating the article to current standards and not simply ignoring part of a topic candidate that was way below standard. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:24, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
- Support. Topic meets the criteria. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:48, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
- Support. Seems kosher to me, now FL has been refined. GRAPPLE X 17:41, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
- Support. A lot of hard work has been put into these articles, and definitely meets the criteria. Basilisk4u (talk) 18:43, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
- Closed with consensus to promote. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 19:52, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Broken Sword[edit]
- Contributor(s): Khanassassin
I've been working on these five articles since late 2011, and finally, all of them have been promoted to GA. - I think all of my hard work deserves this. :) --Khanassassin ☪ 12:04, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
- Support I have reviewed the Broken Sword article and I'm impressed of the quality of the series, particularly the individual game articles. A complete topic which meets the criteria. Arsenikk (talk) 15:55, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
- Support I had previously reviewed and passed Broken Sword: The Angel of Death as GA, and I think the Good Topic is well-deserved for the hard work put into it by Khanassassin and others. I believe it satisfies the Good Topic criteria.--十八 21:04, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
- Support Particularly the first game is one of my favourite games of all time. I am really happy to see them all in good shape. Great work! :)--GoPTCN 18:38, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- Support Great series of professional articles on games played by millions of people, very detailed and concise, and certainly meets the criteria. Gamnos (talk) 16:36, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- Closed with consensus to promote. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 19:51, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
The X-Files (season 7)[edit]
- Contributor(s): Gen. Quon
Here is the seventh season of The X-Files. Generally regarded as the point where the show should have naturally ended (Strangely enough, its one of my favorite seasons), it is comprised of 22 episodes. I believe this topic meets the requirements as it is a listing of all the episodes that aired during the television series' seventh season, which limits it to a well-defined scope. The articles follow a solid formation and bear close structural resemblance to each other. In addition, the individual episode pages read as clearly related articles meant to be viewed in a series, but also stand on their own and present their information without expecting the reader to understand the topic as a whole. --Gen. Quon (talk) 03:21, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
- Support Reviewed a few of these, all up to the same quality. Glimmer721 talk
- Support. Reviewed several of these including the parent article, topic looks solid to me. GRAPPLE X 22:32, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
- Support igordebraga ≠ 19:30, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
- Support Reviewed some of them, and they're all Good quality. —Hahc21 02:43, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- Support High quality articles, great series. --Khanassassin ☪ 19:53, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- Comment I went through and made sure all the references had correct publishers, and I tidied the info boxes and made minor fixes to every article.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 02:45, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
- Closed with consensus to promote. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 19:52, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
The X-Files (season 8)[edit]
- "Within"
- "Without"
- "Patience"
- "Roadrunners"
- "Invocation"
- "Redrum"
- "Via Negativa"
- "Deadalive"
- "Three Words"
- "Empedocles"
- "Vienen"
- "Alone"
- "Essence"
- "Existence"
- Contributor(s): Gen. Quon, Grapple X, Trust Is All You Need
The season that the fans will never stop arguing over; with season 8 came the addition of John Doggett, who, although a great character, was no Mulder (IMHO). I believe this topic meets the requirements as it is a listing of all the episodes that aired during the television series' eighth season, which limits it to a well-defined scope. The articles follow a solid formation and bear close structural resemblance to each other. In addition, the individual episode pages read as clearly related articles meant to be viewed in a series, but also stand on their own and present their information without expecting the reader to understand the topic as a whole. --Gen. Quon (Talk) 00:24, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
- Comment. As the primary author of one of these articles I'm not sure I can support but I do believe all the articles are in good shape and have no outstanding maintenance tags; the scope is complete and the articles feature a great level of consistency which makes them a natural fit for reading as a series. GRAPPLE X 00:31, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
- Support I reviewed one of these and the rest are all up to the same quality. The topic article, while promoted to GA a couple of years ago, is still up to date. Glimmer721 talk 17:42, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
- Just a quick note, as Gilmmer pointed out, the GA was promoted several years ago, but I have updated it to make it go with the rest.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:21, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
- I assume it's okay because it was accepted at GAN, but the table in the main article only gives the viewers for a few episodes. I noticed in the individual episode articles the number of households are given. Glimmer721 talk 23:35, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
- Originally, the total number of viewers was given, but that information was taken from a fan site. The number of households, however, in each episode, is actually calculated in the episode articles themselves (See the "Notes" section in each), so it could be included, but I'd have to have a note reference after each number in the parent article.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 04:37, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
- I assume it's okay because it was accepted at GAN, but the table in the main article only gives the viewers for a few episodes. I noticed in the individual episode articles the number of households are given. Glimmer721 talk 23:35, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
- Just a quick note, as Gilmmer pointed out, the GA was promoted several years ago, but I have updated it to make it go with the rest.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:21, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
- Support: I've yet to finish the season (last one I've seen was Medusa) but a phenomenal work. igordebraga ≠ 19:28, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
- Support Reviewed some of them, and they're all Good quality. —Hahc21 02:43, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- Support. TBrandley 14:58, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
- Comment I went through and made sure all the references had correct publishers, and I tidied the info boxes and made minor fixes to every article.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 02:44, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
- Closed with consensus to promote. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 19:53, 25 July 2012 (UTC)