Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/Kingdom Hearts/addition2

Kingdom Hearts (2nd supplementary nomination)

This topic is already featured. It is being re-nominated to add additional items. See Wikipedia talk:Featured topics/Kingdom Hearts series for discussions of the topic's previous nominations. The additional items are:

1. Kingdom Hearts 358/2 Days
2. Kingdom Hearts Birth by Sleep
3. Kingdom Hearts coded

Main page	Articles
Kingdom Hearts (series)	Kingdom Hearts - Kingdom Hearts: Chain of Memories - Kingdom Hearts II - List of Kingdom Hearts media - Characters of Kingdom Hearts - Music of Kingdom Hearts - Universe of Kingdom Hearts - Organization XIII

Per a previous discussion at WT:FT?, the Kingdom Hearts topic became in violation of FT criteria 1d (no obvious gap) and 3c (Items that are ineligible for featured or good article status must have passed an individual quality audit). The articles at the root of this are unreleased video games that expand upon the current series. They have each gone through a peer review to satisfy criteria 3c and adding them to the topic will satisfy criteria 1d. Once the games are released, there are plans to improve them to GA, and FA if at all possible. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC))

For reference, here are the Peer Review links

1. 358/2 Days PR
2. Birth by Sleep PR
3. coded PR

• Support - Completes the topic once again, great job! Get those GA's to FA too, I know you can do it :) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support - Great work - rst20xx (talk) 20:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support - Looks good to me --Admrb♉ltz (talk) 21:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support - Per Judgesurreal777 (talk · contribs) and Rst20xx (talk · contribs). The plans to improve the articles further to WP:GA is also encouraging. Cirt (talk) 09:53, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
• Comment I added the peer-review requirement without discussion and was never challenged. It was never meant to disregard looking at the artilces. Here at featured topics we have it easy, we do not look at content. I think the audit for quality takes place during the FTC and the peer review is just something to prevent bad artilces from reaching us. Zginder 2008-09-12T04:41Z (UTC)
  • To those that supported, I would prefer it if the articles were looked at per Zginder's comment if you haven't already. I will address any questions and concerns you have as best I can. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 13:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC))
• Support I could not find any problems. Zginder 2008-09-13T04:13Z (UTC)
• Close with consensus to promote - and sorry this took so long, things have been a bit hectic round here lately! rst20xx (talk) 15:11, 16 September 2008 (UTC)