Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Failed log/May 2007

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
edit2006
April 1 promoted 6 not promoted
October 0 promoted 1 not promoted
November 4 promoted 1 not promoted
December 1 promoted 2 not promoted 1 sup.
2007
January 2 promoted 7 not promoted
February 1 promoted 2 not promoted 0 sup. 1 demoted
March 1 promoted 4 not promoted 0 sup. 1 demoted
April 2 promoted 1 not promoted
May 2 promoted 4 not promoted 2 sup. 1 kept
June 3 promoted 2 not promoted
July 0 promoted 0 not promoted
August 1 promoted 0 not promoted
September 4 promoted 6 not promoted 1 sup.
October 4 promoted 1 not promoted
November 2 promoted 0 not promoted 2 sup.
December 3 promoted 1 not promoted
2008
January 3 promoted 0 not promoted 2 sup. 2 demoted
February 2 promoted 1 not promoted
March 4 promoted 2 not promoted 1 sup.
April 5 promoted 4 not promoted 0 sup. 1 kept
May 5 promoted 1 not promoted 1 sup.
June 2 promoted 0 not promoted 1 sup. 2 demoted
July 3 promoted 4 not promoted 1 sup.
August 7 promoted 5 not promoted 2 sup.
September 10 FT, 7 GT 14 not promoted 3 sup.
October 2 FT, 7 GT 7 not promoted 3 sup. 1 kept
November 2 FT, 5 GT 3 not promoted 4 sup.
December 7 FT, 11 GT 5 not promoted 2 sup.
2009
January 2 FT, 4 GT 5 not promoted 2 sup.
February 7 FT, 6 GT 1 not promoted 2 sup. 1 kept, 1 demoted
March 2 FT, 3 GT 2 not promoted 1 sup. 1 kept
April 3 FT, 1 GT 3 not promoted 0 sup.
May 2 FT, 3 GT 0 not promoted 0 sup. 1 demoted
June 4 FT, 9 GT 2 not promoted 3 sup. 3 demoted
July 2 FT, 6 GT 5 not promoted 3 sup. 2 demoted
August 2 FT, 6 GT 2 not promoted 1 sup.
September 3 FT, 2 GT 1 not promoted 2 sup. 2 kept
October 3 FT, 4 GT 0 not promoted 1 sup. 2 kept, 6 demoted
November 1 FT, 1 GT 1 not promoted 0 sup. 1 kept
December 1 FT, 5 GT 1 not promoted 0 sup.
2010
January 1 FT, 3 GT 1 not promoted 2 sup. 2 demoted
February 0 FT, 3 GT 2 not promoted 3 sup. 2 kept, 2 demoted
March 5 FT, 4 GT 3 not promoted 1 sup. 1 kept, 5 demoted
April 1 FT, 8 GT 3 not promoted 4 sup.
May 0 FT, 7 GT 0 not promoted 1 sup.
June 2 FT, 3 GT 0 not promoted 0 sup. 1 demoted
July 5 FT, 3 GT 2 not promoted 2 sup. 2 demoted
August 1 FT, 6 GT 0 not promoted 1 sup.
September 1 FT, 1 GT 4 not promoted 0 sup.
October 3 FT, 18 GT 4 not promoted 1 sup. 2 kept, 2 demoted
November 0 FT, 2 GT 0 not promoted 0 sup. 2 kept, 1 demoted
December 2 FT, 7 GT 1 not promoted 1 sup. 1 kept, 1 demoted
2011
January 2 FT, 5 GT 3 not promoted 0 sup. 0 kept, 1 demoted
February 1 FT, 11 GT 1 not promoted 0 sup. 1 kept, 1 demoted
March 0 FT, 4 GT 2 not promoted 0 sup. 1 kept, 0 demoted
April 1 FT, 9 GT 1 not promoted 1 sup. 0 kept, 0 demoted
May 1 FT, 4 GT 0 not promoted 0 sup. 0 kept, 2 demoted
June 1 FT, 2 GT 2 not promoted 0 sup. 0 kept, 0 demoted
July 2 FT, 2 GT 1 not promoted 0 sup. 0 kept, 2 demoted
August 1 FT, 8 GT 2 not promoted 0 sup. 0 kept, 1 demoted
September 2 FT, 2 GT 2 not promoted 1 sup. 0 kept, 0 demoted
October 4 FT, 6 GT 0 not promoted 2 sup. 0 kept, 0 demoted
November 1 FT, 2 GT 1 not promoted 0 sup. 0 kept, 1 demoted
December 1 FT, 4 GT 1 not promoted 0 sup. 0 kept, 1 demoted
2012
January 1 FT, 3 GT 0 not promoted 0 sup. 0 kept, 0 demoted
February 0 FT, 11 GT 0 not promoted 1 sup. 0 kept, 0 demoted
March 2 FT, 0 GT 0 not promoted 0 sup. 0 kept, 0 demoted
April 0 FT, 6 GT 1 not promoted 0 sup. 1 kept, 0 demoted
May 1 FT, 5 GT 0 not promoted 0 sup. 1 kept, 0 demoted
June 0 FT, 2 GT 0 not promoted 0 sup. 0 kept, 0 demoted
July 0 FT, 14 GT 1 not promoted 1 sup. 0 kept, 4 demoted
August 2 FT, 0 GT 0 not promoted 0 sup. 0 kept, 0 demoted
September 1 FT, 6 GT 0 not promoted 0 sup. 2 kept, 0 demoted
October 1 FT, 3 GT 0 not promoted 0 sup. 0 kept, 0 demoted
November 2 FT, 4 GT 0 not promoted 0 sup. 0 kept, 0 demoted
December 1 FT, 6 GT 0 not promoted 1 sup. 0 kept, 0 demoted
2013
January 0 FT, 3 GT 0 not promoted 0 sup. 0 kept, 0 demoted
February 0 FT, 3 GT 0 not promoted 1 sup. 0 kept, 0 demoted
March 2 FT, 2 GT 1 not promoted 1 sup. 0 kept, 1 demoted
April 2 FT, 4 GT 1 not promoted 0 sup. 2 kept, 0 demoted
May 0 FT, 5 GT 0 not promoted 0 sup. 0 kept, 0 demoted
June 1 FT, 0 GT 0 not promoted 0 sup. 1 kept, 1 demoted
July 1 FT, 8 GT 0 not promoted 0 sup. 3 kept, 2 demoted
August 1 FT, 2 GT 0 not promoted 0 sup. 0 kept, 0 demoted
September 0 FT, 4 GT 0 not promoted 0 sup. 1 kept, 0 demoted
October 4 FT, 1 GT 0 not promoted 1 sup. 0 kept, 0 demoted
November 1 FT, 1 GT 1 not promoted 0 sup. 0 kept, 0 demoted
December 0 FT, 4 GT 1 not promoted 0 sup. 0 kept, 1 demoted
2014
January 1 FT, 2 GT 0 not promoted 2 sup. 0 kept, 0 demoted
February 0 FT, 3 GT 1 not promoted 0 sup. 1 kept, 0 demoted
March 0 FT, 3 GT 1 not promoted 0 sup. 0 kept, 1 demoted
April 1 FT, 0 GT 0 not promoted 0 sup. 0 kept, 0 demoted
May 1 FT, 0 GT 0 not promoted 0 sup. 0 kept, 1 demoted
June 2 FT, 4 GT 1 not promoted 2 sup. 0 kept, 0 demoted
July 1 FT, 3 GT 0 not promoted 0 sup. 1 kept, 0 demoted
August 4 FT, 1 GT 2 not promoted 2 sup. 0 kept, 1 demoted
September 1 FT, 5 GT 0 not promoted 0 sup. 0 kept, 0 demoted
October 1 FT, 2 GT 1 not promoted 1 sup. 0 kept, 2 demoted
November 1 FT, 1 GT 0 not promoted 1 sup. 0 kept, 0 demoted
December 1 FT, 0 GT 1 not promoted 0 sup. 0 kept, 1 demoted
2015
January 0 FT, 2 GT 0 not promoted 0 sup. 0 kept, 1 demoted
February 0 FT, 1 GT 0 not promoted 0 sup. 0 kept, 1 demoted
March 1 FT, 1 GT 0 not promoted 0 sup. 0 kept, 0 demoted
April 0 FT, 2 GT 1 not promoted 0 sup. 0 kept, 1 demoted
May 2 FT, 3 GT 1 not promoted 2 sup. 0 kept, 0 demoted
June 0 FT, 0 GT 0 not promoted 0 sup. 0 kept, 0 demoted
July 1 FT, 3 GT 0 not promoted 1 sup. 1 kept, 1 demoted
August 1 FT, 3 GT 0 not promoted 0 sup. 0 kept, 0 demoted
September 2 FT, 2 GT 0 not promoted 1 sup. 0 kept, 0 demoted
October 0 FT, 0 GT 1 not promoted 0 sup. 0 kept, 0 demoted
November 1 FT, 2 GT 0 not promoted 0 sup. 0 kept, 0 demoted
December 1 FT, 2 GT 0 not promoted 0 sup. 0 kept, 0 demoted
2016
January 1 FT, 1 GT 0 not promoted 2 sup. 0 kept, 0 demoted
February 0 FT, 0 GT 0 not promoted 0 sup. 0 kept, 0 demoted
March 1 FT, 3 GT 0 not promoted 1 sup. 0 kept, 0 demoted
April 0 FT, 0 GT 0 not promoted 0 sup. 1 kept, 0 demoted
May 0 FT, 3 GT 1 not promoted 2 sup. 0 kept, 0 demoted
June 1 FT, 2 GT 0 not promoted 2 sup. 0 kept, 2 demoted
July 1 FT, 2 GT 1 not promoted 0 sup. 0 kept, 0 demoted
August 1 FT, 3 GT 0 not promoted 0 sup. 1 kept, 1 demoted
September 0 FT, 7 GT 0 not promoted 0 sup. 0 kept, 1 demoted
October 0 FT, 3 GT 0 not promoted 3 sup. 0 kept, 0 demoted
November 0 FT, 4 GT 0 not promoted 1 sup. 1 kept, 2 demoted
December 0 FT, 1 GT 1 not promoted 0 sup. 0 kept, 1 demoted
2017
January 2 FT, 3 GT 1 not promoted 1 sup. 0 kept, 1 demoted
February 0 FT, 3 GT 2 not promoted 0 sup. 0 kept, 0 demoted
March 4 FT, 2 GT 0 not promoted 0 sup. 1 kept, 0 demoted
April 1 FT, 3 GT 0 not promoted 2 sup. 0 kept, 2 demoted
May 1 FT, 6 GT 0 not promoted 0 sup. 0 kept, 0 demoted
June 0 FT, 2 GT 0 not promoted 1 sup. 0 kept, 0 demoted
July 0 FT, 4 GT 0 not promoted 1 sup. 0 kept, 0 demoted
August 0 FT, 1 GT 1 not promoted 0 sup. 0 kept, 0 demoted
September 0 FT, 0 GT 0 not promoted 0 sup. 0 kept, 0 demoted
October 0 FT, 0 GT 0 not promoted 0 sup. 0 kept, 0 demoted
November 0 FT, 0 GT 0 not promoted 0 sup. 0 kept, 0 demoted
December 0 FT, 0 GT 0 not promoted 0 sup. 0 kept, 0 demoted

Chrono Series[edit]

Main page Articles
Featured articleChrono Trigger Good articleRadical Dreamers - Featured articleChrono Cross - Good articleChrono Break

This series has two features articles and two GA articles. Other Chrono-Related articles are not nearly as important and this in itself constitutes all the games, so there are no gaps. Judgesurreal777 23:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Contributor Support—looks good. — Deckiller 23:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Object, as it is missing some articles. The template linking them together includes a few other articles that should be included. Furthermore, there is no central article (dabs don't count). Hurricanehink (talk) 23:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
    • As I said above, there are no gaps, since the other "Chrono" articles are, despite editors hard work, still piles of fancruft and are not important enough to include. Also, the Star Wars Featured Topic has a category central article. Judgesurreal777 23:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
    • (edit conflict) Most of those are crufty, questionable articles, like the character lists and whatnot; they aren't major gaps because they are outlined on each article. A category can be used instead of the disambiguation page, sort of like the Star Wars Episodes FT. I mean, we don't include the articles for Anakin Skywalker and the Clone Wars for Star Wars episodes, or the individual characters for each final fantasy title in the Final Fantasy FT series. — Deckiller 23:20, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose Lack of a good uniting article. Selecting only the games is not cherry picking IMHO. Circeus 01:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
    • I don't think that's a very reasonable reason to oppose, especially since there are only four games here (technically only two). Like the Star Wars episodes, I think we can just go with the uniting category. — Deckiller 01:50, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Yes it is. I think it's reasonable to expect for a four games franchise to have an article about said franchise as a whole. Look at SimCity (series) (which has overall less articles than the Chrono franchise). Circeus 02:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
        • The problem is that there won't be enough content. Chrono Trigger and Chrono Cross are two completely different games (Chrono Cross is technically a sequel, but the connections are not as tight as many. Dreamers was a side story, and Break was never made); SimCity games are all essensially the same. A Chrono series article would just rehash information seen in both articles, except maybe for a similarities section, which would grow unweildy, full of OR, and have no chance to become a decent article. — Deckiller 03:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
          • Take a look at the lead article for the Mana series, or even the Final Fantasy series, and you'll see that even for more established series, it is very hard to avoid having a series article filled with trivia and original research. A Chrono series article really would be an OR rehashing of Trigger and Cross. Judgesurreal777 03:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I think that the way to think about it is that this topic is "Games set in the Chrono universe". Therefore, like the Final Fantasy topic, only games should be included. That's a much better reason to not have the characters and music articles in there than "because they're not very good". --PresN 05:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Support - I don't think that there is a need for a series article. Unlike most game "series", this is actually three loosely linked together games, plus one that was never made. There isn't enough connections besides the overall world to write anything more than a stub about, and all of those connections are already in the article. The dab is fine by me. --PresN 05:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose - By the requirements it has to have a main article, and I cannot give this topic my support without one. However, as PresN says, there is not a huge need for one in covering the topic. If the disambiguation page added a couple paragraphs about the history of the series and how the games relate to each other, that would be good enough for a summery article in this case. Alternatively, I think that the Chrono Trigger article covers the series well enough with its "sequels" section, so it could act as a main article. --Arctic Gnome (talkcontribs) 04:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - A Chrono series main article is definitely feasible. It doesn't have to be as long as the, say, Final Fantasy or Mana series articles, but it would have well enough information to reach at least GA: couple of paragraphs on the games, the OAV, the music, and the developer's comments about the relation between Chrono Cross and Chrono Trigger. And if necessary, the Chrono Break article could even be merged in this series article: as a game that does not exist, it may or may not be more relevant there. Kariteh 08:22, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
    • The Final Fantasy and Mana series articles are frankly no where near being GA status, and to construct a Chrono Series main article out of whole cloth would be a collection of Original research and speculation. Having the category page be the main article would be in line with the Star Wars movie article which is also a current featured topic. Judgesurreal777 18:42, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Major Modification - I have put the Chrono Trigger article as the main topic, since it covers the main game of the series and all the sequels, and then listed the 3 other articles. Perhaps we could have a revote on this new format? :) Judgesurreal777 18:56, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Neutral Articles are good, but I'm not exactly happy with the way a major concern ahs been sidestepped.Circeus 21:13, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
    • The intent was to accomodate by making the Chrono Trigger article be central, as was suggested. What's wrong with that? It emcompasses the whole topic.....Judgesurreal777 22:02, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
    • I think that the Chrono Trigger article has enough on the series as a whole to be a main article. However, as a main article it is very weak; the topic would be much better if the disambig page was expanded. --Arctic Gnome (talkcontribs) 04:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
  • On characters and music lists - The other two video games to make FT status both had their associated lists included. All of the Chrono series lists are complete and referenced and could probably make FL. I think they should be included. --Arctic Gnome (talkcontribs) 04:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
    • I hope you're joking. The Music article has 2 stub sections, and both have almost no references. Circeus 13:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
      • If we were to treat the music article as a list, both of those stub sections are unnecessary and can be deleted, and three references is more than many FLs have. --Arctic Gnome (talkcontribs) 14:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Withdraw - It is clear that the topic will not be featured, so forget the damn thing. 69.253.238.27 20:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)(That was me, Judgesurreal777 20:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC))

Michigan State University (1st supplementary nomination)[edit]

Reason for nominating the new articles: Both Sparty(mascot of Michigan State University) and John Clough Holmes (responsible for the establishment of Michigan State University) are GA class and should be apart of the Featured topic. The Michigan State University Spartan Marching Band is a great page and I think it will be making GA class any day now, have a look, I would not be heart broken if this last one douse not make it, but I feel it could have a place on the list. Max ╦╩ 05:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

This topic is already featured. It is being re-nominated to add additional items. See Wikipedia talk:Featured topics/Michigan State University/archive1 for discussions of the topic's previous nominations. The additional items are:

  1. Good article John Clough Holmes
  2. Good article Sparty
  3. Michigan State University Spartan Marching Band
Main page Articles
existing topics: Michigan State University Campus of Michigan State University - History of Michigan State University - Michigan State Spartans - Michigan State University academics - new topics Sparty - John Clough Holmes - Michigan State University Spartan Marching Band
  • Support/nominat Max ╦╩ 05:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak support oppose - These are clearly related to the topic. The two GA's are long enough and well referenced. The marching band one needs some work, but I think it's complete enough. However, the Michigan State University navigation template has a lot more articles in it. I'll have to look through it to make sure that this topic isn't cheery picking. --Arctic Gnome (talkcontribs) 15:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm changing my vote to weak oppose due to the cherry picking. The topic in it's current state has all of the main articles about Michigan U. If we are going to add minor articles about it, we would have to add more of them. --Arctic Gnome (talkcontribs) 17:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
  • What Why can I not "cheery pick" the best Articles MSU has to offer? The rules say nothing about this. Max ╦╩ 16:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
  • It's the first one there. "The articles should have a clear similarity with each other under a well-defined topical scope that does not arbitrarily exclude items." You shouldn't just pick the good ones there; you should pick the ones that are the most crucial and relevant to the topic. ShadowHalo 20:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now. Let's improve some more articles first, then we can come back with an expansion. Lovelac7 02:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
  • nominat on Hold Max ╦╩ 15:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
    • All three GA bids have ended. There is no longer any reason to keep this nomination on hold. --Arctic Gnome (talkcontribs) 04:09, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Most of the articles are now GA, great to expand the topic. Judgesurreal777 18:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Articles are cherry picked. --Maitch 08:11, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose, as above. Why don't you list List of Michigan State University people for a peer review and GA? I see it failed Featured list recently, but it is, IMHO, an article that would fit very well into the current FT. It is a full article of a chapter in Michigan State University after all. Witty Lama 22:22, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Fail - After a month there is no consensus to promote. You've improved a few articles to GA status, so it looks like the only issue left to fix is cherry-picking. An expansion that includes all of the minor MSU articles should pass no problem. --Arctic Gnome (talkcontribs) 15:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Stuart monarchs of Great Britain[edit]

Main page Articles
House of Stuart James I - Charles I- Charles II - James II - Mary II - William III - Anne

They've all been FA promoted. Two problems though: the lead article isn't very well developed, and some of them were promoted at a time when the criteria were less stringent, and risk being demoted (James II already has been). Lampman 21:12, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Oppose House of Stuart has a big {{unreferenced}} tag at the top! Circeus 01:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose At least half are scarcely referenced and wouldn't survive an FAR. ShadowHalo 04:51, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
    • The FA project really needs to get its act together. Why are there so many articles with undeserved featured status? --Arctic Gnome (talkcontribs) 15:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Because back in the day (2003-early 2004) a bunch of articles were passed as FAs under a set of requirements that were radically easier to meet than todays, and the FAR process is a lot slower than GAR, besides not allowing the quick-failing of FAs. It's not that the FA project needs to get it's act together (AFAIK there is no such thing) but that more people need to contribute to FAR so that the backlog can be gotten through. --PresN 16:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
      • The FA review/candidate sections don't need to get their acts together; the people whole pile on nominations and overwhelm us need to. If we weren't so swarmed with review and candidate nominations, we'd probably be able to salvage more than we do/prevent poor articles from promoting. And like PresN said, a lot of these articles were promoted in the "brillant prose" era of 2003-2004. — Deckiller 18:39, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Oh right, and Oppose, I don't need to look past the House of Stuart article to see that this topic needs a lot of work. --PresN 16:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose As per ShadowHalo Qjuad 02:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose as the main article, House of Stuart doesn't even have a references section. It lacks the section entirely. One could have at least cheated, thrown one in there, and put a source or two. --Phoenix (talk) 03:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Failed --Arctic Gnome (talkcontribs) 02:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Well Known U.S. National Parks[edit]

Main page Articles
National Park Service List of areas in the National Park System of the United States - Bryce Canyon National Park - Chaco Culture National Historical Park - Craters of the Moon National Monument and Preserve - Death Valley National Park - Glacier National Park (US) - Mammoth Cave National Park - Mount Rushmore - Redwood National and State Parks - Yellowstone National Park - Yosemite National Park - Zion National Park

I have nominated the National Park Service as the main article because it best suits all of the parks, all of the parks listed are all very well known and they are all Featured Articles/List except for Mammoth Cave National Park which is a GA. I have come up with the name "Well Known U.S. National Parks" but if anyone else has a better idea for a name then that might be better.--Joebengo 03:42, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment. I'm not so sure it passes criteria 1 and 5. To be a clearly defined topic, it would have to be every single national park, though that is unfeasible at the time. Are there any of those topics, or other National Parks that are featured, that could be grouped together in a very clearly defined way? Perhaps the original National Parks (I am assuming that a few were established at once), or some other way that is clearly defined by an outside source. Hurricanehink (talk) 03:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Oppose - I agree; "well known" is not a clearly defined scope. If there was a widely-recognized title that these major parks shared with eachother, then they could be put under one group, but as is this seems a bit arbitrary. Maybe you could nominate all the parks in one region of the US? --Arctic Gnome (talkcontribs) 04:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Support, except why is there a park in Norway in this list (Rondane National Park)? The other parks would likely be recognized by non-US people, and the list fills in the gaps. Nationalparks 07:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose on WP:WIAFT #1 - "well known" is most emphatically not a "well-defined topical scope that does not arbitrarily exclude items". Also, what's a Norwegian national park doing in there? Tompw (talk) 12:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose Topic does not have a well-defined scope, and a Norwegian Park does not belong in the US Park topic. Jay32183 23:45, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Failed --Arctic Gnome (talkcontribs) 02:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)