Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/Failed log/April 2006

Nuclear weapons

Nuclear weapons
Nuclear weapons history
Nuclear warfare
Nuclear arms race
Nuclear weapon design
Nuclear explosion
Nuclear testing
Nuclear delivery
Nuclear proliferation
Nuclear countries

The nuclear weapons series is simply the best one I know of on Wikipedia. Category:Nuclear weapons has nearly a hundred articles and several subcategories, but there is also a clear and superb core, represented by the template User:Fastfission designed. The most important articles beyond the template are generally linked as main subarticles from sections, and many of them are quite substantial as well.

Nominate and support--ragesoss 19:56, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose
  • At least three articles have no references whatsoever. Inline citations would be even better.
  • Several display serious layout issues, notably Nuclear warfare.
  • One is proteced, and one has a merger issue pending.
  • Also obviously not peer reviewed (when doing so, make sure to mention your aim is not FA, though)

Circeus 20:06, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Conditional support. Get a least three references for each article. Once that's done you can change my vote to support.--HereToHelp 18:15, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Oppose per Circeus. Some of the articles completely lack reference. Other objections raised are also serious. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 08:49, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

• Nomination was not promoted on 06:40, 29 April 2006 - rst20xx (talk) 13:24, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Warsaw Uprising

Warsaw Uprising is one of our older FAs. It has an interesting and well done series of subarticles as shown in the above series template. I think it's a perfect series for discussion here.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 17:42, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Very nice series, well organized. --Fastfission 00:34, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Weak oppose for now. There is definitely enought quality material to make it a featured topic, but it has a feeling of a work in progress, due to numerous stub sections and lots of red links in the box on the main article and the important persons list. Much of the prose could use a close going-over for style, but that's a minor concern; overall the prose is good enough for featured topic status, even if some of the subarticles wouldn't make FA.--ragesoss 19:26, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Why not? The "Featured topic" concept is relatively undeveloped anyway, so it is hard to say what criteria need to be fulfilled to qualify. Let's give this one a go. Balcer 15:31, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support--SylwiaS | talk 22:40, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• Nomination was not promoted on 06:40, 29 April 2006 - rst20xx (talk) 13:24, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Stargate

The nomination procedure was very unclear. I am not sure if I did this right. If I didn't, my intent was to nominate this template of all Topics in Stargate for featured topic status. I think this would be good because all the articles in this template are very good and Stargate is a great and very interesting topic. The more diverse our featured topics, the more people from different backgrounds will come to wikipedia. Stargate currently is a very popular show, with no featured content on wikipedia, yet there is an entire wikiproject on it. Tobyk777 22:50, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

• Nomination was not promoted on 19:14, 8 April 2006 - rst20xx (talk) 13:23, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Decade Volcanoes

Main page	Articles
Decade Volcanoes	Avachinsky-Koryaksky, Colima, Mount Etna, Galeras, Mauna Loa, Merapi, Nyiragongo, Mount Rainier, Sakurajima, Santamaria/Santiaguito, Santorini, Taal Volcano, Teide, Ulawun, Mount Unzen, Vesuvius

The Decade Volcanoes are those which have been identified as the most worthy of intensive study, given their history of violent eruptions and proximity to large populations. I've worked on all these articles, making sure they have references and images, and have also made a WikiReader (see WP:WR) from this content, so thought I would give it a run past here. Worldtraveller 17:38, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

• Looks great! I'll support if you can add references to Mount Etna, Teide and Mount Vesuvius. Also, the "related images" at Mauna Loa ought to be included in the body of the article (and some of them are of dubious value, I think). Tuf-Kat 22:34, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks! Have done as suggested with Mauna Loa, and will add references shortly to the relevant articles. Worldtraveller 19:04, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Unfortunately I find myself without the time at the moment to dig up references where required. I'll be able to address this point in a few weeks time - if I can leave this nomination here pending until then that would be great, but I can easily renominate when I have worked on the articles if the nomination is remove in the meantime. Worldtraveller 21:01, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
• I agree with Tuf-Kat, but would add that the main article (Decade Volcanoes) could possibly do with some too. Secondly, should it not be Decade Volcano? Great work to all involved in these articles. violet/riga (t) 18:48, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Yep, it certainly does need references, and I will add some asap. As for its title, I have no strong preference although I created the article at the plural form as it made more sense to me in the way I wrote the text. Worldtraveller 19:04, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I know there's a general policy (or guideline?) that articles should be at their singular - it's probably in the naming conventions somewhere, but it's not anything I'd quibble about. violet/riga (t) 19:12, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• For the most part this looks good. There are some things off though. A huge one is that not all the articles link to each other. Perhaps a template would be good here. Also, some have multiple external links sections which should be merged. Other than that the content looks good, and this should become a featured topic.
  • Thanks very much for the comment. The articles are linked by all being in Category:Decade Volcanoes, and I have to say I think that a template would be a bit redundant with that, though I would not object to adding one if you feel that it would benefit the series. I'll have a look for the multiple links sections and sort that one. Worldtraveller 21:01, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
• Links to merapi needs to be disambiguated. Also, all templates should be made identical, especially if these are to be linked through a template. SeeWikipedia:WikiProject Mountains#Templates. Circeus 20:53, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
• It'd be kind of nice to know what International Association of Volcanology and Chemistry is. At least some kind of stub article talking about a bit of it. Seems kind of strange to have it right off in the main article.
• Nomination was not promoted on 19:14, 8 April 2006 - rst20xx (talk) 13:23, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

addendum: today these articles are in atrocious shape. ResMar 21:34, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Music of the Lesser Antilles

Main page	Articles
Music of the Lesser Antilles	Music of Anguilla - Music of Antigua and Barbuda - Music of Aruba and the Netherlands Antilles - Music of Barbados - Music of Dominica - Music of Grenada - Music of Martinique and Guadeloupe - Music of Montserrat - Music of Saint Kitts and Nevis - Music of Saint Lucia - Music of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines - Music of Trinidad and Tobago - Music of the Virgin Islands

I think all of these are at least pretty good in terms of content, though images are lacking. Music of Anguilla and music of Montserrat are the least-detailed, I think. I know a few are missing references -- I can probably scrounge those up. These articles are all interlinked, but using two different templates. The Anglophone islands, which is most of them, do their own thing. Is that a problem? There is a template just for Lesser Antillean music, and each article does link to each other article. Music of the Lesser Antilles is in need of some clean-up, so I'll see what I can do with that. Any suggestions or comments? Tuf-Kat 20:47, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comments (1) I think, if this is to be a featured topic, all its articles should be in a separate category Category:Music of the Lesser Antilles, for example. (2) At present there's no way to navigate between all the articles in the series. (3) Whilst I wouldn't expect every article in a featured topic series to have a picci, I think it's fair to expect there to be more than one photo (which isn't great, to be frank) in some of the articles (including, in particular, the lead article). (4) The reference to the St Kitt's and Nevis page is not named in the article. (5) No references on the Virgin Islands page. (6) If there's a reason why the British and US Virgin Islands aren't dealt with separately, it's not explained. Note, I haven't actually read the text yet, but think these need sorting out before it can be considered for promotion, jguk 21:28, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I think I've taken care of all but #3. I've found one PD photo for the St. Kitts page, but I think it's unlikely I'll find much more. Tuf-Kat 09:10, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support: There are lots of red links, which seems a little odd but is not really a problem as long as this topic is covered. It seems to meet all of the criteria, so I'll give it my support. Great work Tuf-Kat. violet/riga (t) 16:52, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose Music of Trinidad and Tobago's intro needs a serious trim down before it can be considered good quality. I'm not mentioning the awful picture and template placement in several articles as I've just taken care of it, also removing links in titles, as per WP:MoS. Any local music template should be used in addition to {{LesserAntilleanmusic}}. Steelpans are also not mentioned in Music of Trinidad and Tobago:no cookie points for you. Finally, each article should be the main in its category (add a pipe+space or * at the end of the category link). Circeus 21:19, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Also, {{LesserAntilleanmusic}} needs conversion to a footer, but I'm working toward that.
• Nomination was not promoted on 19:14, 8 April 2006 - rst20xx (talk) 13:23, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

2012 Summer Olympics bids

Main page	Articles
2012 Summer Olympics bids, {{2012 Olympic bid}}	London 2012 Olympic bid, Madrid 2012 Olympic bid, Moscow 2012 Olympic bid, New York 2012 Olympic bid, Paris 2012 Olympic bid

The "2012 Summer Olympics bids" topic has the following qualities:

• A central "overview" article (2012 Summer Olympics bids)
• Great interconnection between the articles
• A good, informative template ({{2012 Olympic bid}})
• Good articles
• Fairly good consistency between the articles

It also has a few points that might stop it being featured:

• No references on any of the articles
• Madrid 2012 Olympic bid and Moscow 2012 Olympic bid are not particularly in-depth

Despite these negative points I think it makes for a very good topic. violet/riga (t) 13:16, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Object at least until it has references, jguk 13:58, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • That's a fair point, and something I hope to attend to in the near future. violet/riga (t) 14:05, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• oh, and also, the Moscow and Madrid articles are only stubs, jguk 14:11, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Nomination was not promoted on 19:14, 8 April 2006 - rst20xx (talk) 13:23, 12 August 2009 (UTC)