A comprehensive set of articles relating to scheduled monuments in the English county of Somerset. All of the lists are Featured Lists and the lead article is GA. --— Rodtalk 07:54, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note Nominator will be away (at Glastonbury Festival) from 22 to 29 June and will not be able to respond to any comments during this time.— Rodtalk 19:43, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support current scope I like the approach of having lists broken down by district to make them easier to navigate. Far more than the required 50% are Featured. I think it is a reasonable way to cover the topic, much as 670 Featured Articles would be nice ;) Would there be the intention to include more articles in the topic such as the most popular pages? I'm thinking along the lines of Glastonbury Tor (GA) or Wells Cathedral (FA). It might be tempting to highlight a few of the most important, but the gradual creep might make it difficult to establish a cut off. Certainly I am happy to support the current group of lists. Nev1 (talk) 20:56, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support. I think 670 FAs is beyond me (certainly for a few years) and I'm unsure how the most "popular" or "important" would be decided, therefore I think it should be just the lists and the lead article.— Rodtalk 21:57, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think this is the best way to approach the topic - I'm not sure where a line could be drawn in order to include individual topics, and we have similar situations with other existing FTs (such as the Oslo Metro, where list articles at FL are used instead of a complete set of those articles). Miyagawa (talk) 08:50, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Meets the criteria as far as I can see, great work. NapHit (talk) 17:06, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support the topic is fine. I took the freedom to tweak the naming scheme. Nergaal (talk) 19:03, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Closed with a consensus to promote to Featured Topic. - GamerPro64 20:21, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is a good topic nomination for the indie video game developer Asher Vollmer and his games. The two subarticles are his games that have garnered enough reliable, secondary source attention to warrant their own articles. It's a small topic, but I believe it meets the criteria, and will continue to expand as he makes more games over his lifetime. – czar 15:56, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - good and complete. --PresN 16:23, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am a bit skeptical of creating topics around people who just got kinda notable for 2 games. I propose having him instead be featured in the topic listed below here. Nergaal (talk) 03:20, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But there's no such thing as "kinda notable"—he and his games are the subject of significant, independent coverage. For now, the topic is complete. – czar 23:55, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support- covers the topic excellently. --Anarchyte 05:53, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support – I am a bit unsure about this article because, despite being sourced well, it looks a little...short to provide the main coverage of its topic. By the last time when I looked at it, it felt short for me.
EDIT: I am sorry, but, for me, I keep thinking of it as a stub, and I dislike having changed my vote from "Neutral" to "oppose", but, just, ignore me. Gamingforfun365 (talk) 09:56, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Gamingforfun365, what? If you're saying the main article is short, like a stub, it was peer reviewed as a good article, which requires breadth of coverage. What more information (sourced from reliable outlets) is the article or topic missing? If you don't have specific concerns, I don't see how it can "fall short" apart from not liking short articles. Some article subjects do not have reams of sources (or do not otherwise require going into detail on minutiae so as to conflate length and rigor). – czar 21:57, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As in...I want to learn more about him, such as his early life, his personal life, and/or other things, not just his career. I am sorry for not being more specific...you know what? Forget about me, for I am probably thinking wrongly, BUT I AM glad that you were not very upset with me. Gamingforfun365 (talk) 22:08, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. I admit that it does have potential, but I just think that we could mention more about his personal life, such as his religion, his possible spouse, etc., not just about his career. Gamingforfun365 (talk) 23:20, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you think the article shouldn't be a Good Article, I suggest taking it to WP:GAN. And if that does happen, I would have to suspend this nomination until that GANs outcome is determined. GamerPro64 00:02, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Gamingforfun365, if no reliable source finds his personal life noteworthy enough to report on it, then we don't cover it. To cover Vollmer's religion and family situation would be a slew of original research (and, I'd say, undue weight) when he's known for being a small indie dev making small indie games. – czar 03:49, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"if no reliable source finds his personal life noteworthy enough to report on it, then we don't [need to] cover it.", and that would be an excuse – a likable excuse – , for these articles could not be mentioned any further because no other information could be reliably sourced, and not everything which has been secondarily sourced reliably would be original research because we are not using primary sources, although I do not see how talking a little bit about these persons other than just their careers would be undue when other such articles as Steve Jobs do it. Having said that, am I missing something about that? Entschuldigung, for this probably was just I as an autistic with creative differences, and I had ASSUMED that it could have been improved further, but, because this had probably achieved at maximum, I guess that I will change my vote to support. I regret causing some trouble by accident. Gamingforfun365 (talk) 04:44, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Closed with a consensus to promote to Good Topic.--十八 22:09, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The List of English Heritage properties in Somerset is an FL which lists all 12 sites that English Heritage manage within the county. Each of the articles about the sites is now a Good Article, therefore I think this meets the requirements for a Good Topic. If a brief description is needed part of the lead from the list could be included, but I am unclear where to put this.— Rodtalk 18:37, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - great job! You can just add the introductory paragraph to this page- stick <noinclude>Intro</noinclude> above the topic box on this nomination page, and the closer will put in on the actual topic page when they promote it. --PresN 19:18, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I've attempted a short intro paragraph above - if something longer is needed just let me know and I will add to it.— Rodtalk 19:32, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support seems complete. Nergaal (talk) 03:22, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note Nominator will be away (at Glastonbury Festival) from 22 to 29 June and will not be able to respond to any comments during this time.—Rodtalk 19:42, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks pretty open and shut: 12 properties, 12 GAs so my support is unconditional. One thing does occur to me for the FL – would it be worth expanding the introduction? You could discuss when the properties came under EH control and what they've been doing to promote research in the county. Just and idea, and like I said the Topic has my support. Nev1 (talk) 20:50, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I've watched this list grow with admiration. A brilliant collection of work, nothing much more to say! Harriastalk 07:34, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 12 properties, all of which are now GA, along with an FL. That's pretty clear cut to me. Miyagawa (talk) 12:03, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - other than the ones I've worked on at GA, which might represent a conflict of interest...! ;) Hchc2009 (talk) 15:14, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Closed with a consensus to promote to Good Topic.--十八 21:47, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
All three articles are GA, and fall within a clearly defined scope of a single class of submarines. The three articles are linked, and have a common template. There were only two submarines of this class, so there are no gaps in coverage. --Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 02:49, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support The articles look good, and they're all GAs. Well done.--ɱ(talk · vbm) 03:08, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Complete topic. Adabow (talk) 05:38, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Compete topic, all are GAs. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:50, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Closed with a consensus to promote to Good Topic. - GamerPro64 01:08, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
