Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Featured log/February 2009

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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, 1 GT 0 not promoted 0 sup. 0 kept, 0 demoted
October 0 FT, 1 GT 0 not promoted 1 sup. 0 kept, 0 demoted
November 1 FT, 0 GT 1 not promoted 0 sup. 1 kept, 0 demoted
December 1 FT, 2 GT 0 not promoted 0 sup. 0 kept, 0 demoted
January 1 FT, 4 GT 0 not promoted 1 sup. 0 kept, 0 demoted
February 0 FT, 1 GT 0 not promoted 0 sup. 0 kept, 0 demoted
March 0 FT, 0 GT 0 not promoted 0 sup. 0 kept, 0 demoted
April 0 FT, 0 GT 0 not promoted 0 sup. 0 kept, 0 demoted
May 0 FT, 0 GT 0 not promoted 0 sup. 0 kept, 0 demoted
June 0 FT, 0 GT 0 not promoted 0 sup. 0 kept, 0 demoted
July 0 FT, 0 GT 0 not promoted 0 sup. 0 kept, 0 demoted
August 0 FT, 0 GT 0 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

Good topic candidates: view - edit - history

Iowa class battleships[edit]

9 articles
Featured article Iowa class battleships
Uss iowa bb-61 pr.jpg
Featured article USS Iowa (BB-61)
Featured article USS New Jersey (BB-62)
Featured article USS Missouri (BB-63)
Featured article USS Wisconsin (BB-64)
Featured article USS Illinois (BB-65)
Featured article USS Kentucky (BB-66)
Featured article Armament
Featured article USS Iowa turret explosion
Major contributors: user:TomStar81, user:Bellhalla, user:MBK004, user:Maralia , user:Cla68, user:FTC Gerry, user:Bschorr,, User:The ed17, and other Ship and Military History project members

After nearly three and a half years of work I am proud to present to Wikipedia the first attempt at a Featured Topic nom for ships, in this case the legendary Iowa-class. This is my first nomination for Featured Topic, so I apologize in advance if I goofed on anything. I state clearly for the record two important points that must be addressed with this nom: First, several of the articles are at the moment undergoing peer reviews. These reviews will not alter the outcome of the articles quality, nor do they threaten the stability or FA rank of any articles in question. The peer reviews are opened by me on a yearly basis to ensure that any changes in criteria since the last formal review are incorporated into the articles. Secondly, I am officially a college senior now, and managed for the first time ever to line up 15 credit hours, but the classes and work load at senior level are intense. I therefore want to explicitly state here that if I appear slow to respond to requests, comments, or opposes have patience, it is likely that school work has me tied up.

  • Support as nominator. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:21, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Support. I was the primary editor on USS Iowa turret explosion, but was not involved except for some minor editing in most of the other articles for this topic. TomStar81 has done really excellent work in leading the construction of this topic and the articles included in it and I fully support its inclusion as a featured topic. Cla68 (talk) 06:37, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - (Disclosure, I collaborated with Tom on Illinois and Kentucky) -MBK004 06:43, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - Wow, can't see anything to oppose here, very comprehensive! Skinny87 (talk) 07:56, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Support — Although Tom has included me in the above nomination as a major contributor, I think that's giving me too much credit. Nonetheless, I believe this meets the FTC criteria. (But shouldn't the topic be pluralized?) — Bellhalla (talk) 13:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
    (Yes I think it should be too, I'll be bold and make the change - rst20xx (talk) 12:04, 10 February 2009 (UTC))
    Comment - I cannot, because it seems Nergaal previously made that page :@ Can an admin move this page to Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Iowa class battleships please? rst20xx (talk) 12:06, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
    Thanks! rst20xx (talk) 16:15, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
    You are welcome. TomStar81 (Talk) 16:16, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - agree with Bellhalla, with the difference that I know he is giving me too much credit, but this definitely meets all of the FT criteria. Cheers, —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 18:19, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Shouldn't United States Naval Gunfire Support debate be included too? Nergaal (talk) 18:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
    • I made a conscious decision to omit that article for two reasons: first, the core articles here are those related directly to the battleships. In real terms that means all six battleships, their weaponry, and the class article. The gunfire support debate involves the battleships, but is not exclusively concerned with the battleships, and on top of that there are surviving FAC issues (including NPOV complaints) that have yet to be addressed. In light of this I felt that it would be best to omit that article until the complaints were adequately addressed. In real terms, the article is not actually missing from the set: the class article contains a summary of the debate including the key points from the debate article, and this allows for an overview of the debate without bring an article with issues into the set. In fact, the entire debate originated on this page and was spun out so that the Arleigh Burke and DDX-class articles would have a link to a dedicated debate page rather than have to link to a subsection of the Iowa-class. Having said all this, if consensus is to include the article, I will add it to the lineup. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:08, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
      • Support, but you should note that the debate article can easily pass GA criteria so it can be technically added quite soon (only problem being the apparent dislike of GAs inside the MilHist project). Nergaal (talk) 19:50, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Support I think that United States Naval Gunfire Support debate should be included at a latter date, but this topic is fine for now. Zginder 2009-02-09T19:12Z (UTC)
  • Support Cam (Chat) 23:55, 9 February 2009 (UTC) DISCLOSURE: I performed technical and prose copyediting on several of the articles in the FTC
  • Support - meets WP:WIAFT.--TRUCO 503 01:54, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Support Bernstein2291 (talk) 03:56, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Support These are all fantastic articles Nick-D (talk) 05:25, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Involved Support - heavens, this has been a long time coming. Confident it meets FT criteria. Maralia (talk) 05:58, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - well done! rst20xx (talk) 11:49, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - per everybody else. Great work, all! Parsecboy (talk) 13:02, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Close with consensus to promote - rst20xx (talk) 21:27, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Supplementary nominations[edit]

  1. Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Iowa class battleships/addition1

Nine Inch Nails[edit]

7 articles
Featured article Nine Inch Nails
Nine Inch Nails logo.svg
Good articleTrent Reznor
Featured articleLive-band members
Featured articleLive performances
Featured articleTours
Featured articleDiscography
Featured articleAwards
Major contributor: Drewcifer3000

Previous nomination was withdrawn due to concerns over the broadness of the topic. Nevertheless, the criteria for overview topics were clarified, and I believe that the topic does pass those criteria. The only article that may deserve addition is Good articleTapeworm (band), but it seems that it is only a minor part of the topic to really deserve inclusion. Cheers! Nergaal 05:44, 8 February 2009 (UTC) & Drewcifer3000

  • Support - I supported before, I'll support now. Let's hope the overview rules prevent what happened last time from happening again - rst20xx (talk) 14:47, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - also supported last time. The NIN articles always impress me, let's hope the FTC passes this time. igordebraga 00:24, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Support like last time, with or without Tapeworm. Zginder 2009-02-09T06:59Z (UTC)
  • Support - meets WP:WIAFT.--TRUCO 503 01:53, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment It would definitely be nice to see Trent Reznor as an FA to have this entire topic featured :) Gary King (talk) 20:41, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Maybe some day... Drewcifer (talk) 01:10, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Halo media[edit]

19 articles
Featured article Halo media
Good article Halo: The Fall of Reach
Good article Halo: The Flood
Good article Halo: First Strike
Good article Halo: Ghosts of Onyx
Featured article Halo: Contact Harvest
Good article I Love Bees
Good article Halo Original Soundtrack
Good article Halo 2 Original Soundtrack
Featured article Halo 3 Original Soundtrack
Featured article The Halo Graphic Novel
Peer review Halo: Uprising
Featured article Halo: Combat Evolved
Featured article Halo 2
Featured article Halo 3
Good article Halo 3 marketing
Peer review Halo 3: ODST
Peer review Halo Wars
Peer review Halo: Chronicles

Ok, this should all be in order. Content from The Cole Protocol added as addendum to the List of Halo media (and the plot details to be added to the series topic). This would replace Wikipedia:Featured_topics/Halo_trilogy, but I figured since it's a new name and larger scope it would be best to simply delist and redirect if this passes. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 19:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment - I think it should be nominated for removal properly. As for me, I'll hold off on supporting til you're done with The Cole Protocol - rst20xx (talk) 20:55, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Then if this one passes I would be happy to do so (I'm not familiar with FTC, so that's why I didn't think about it.) As for The Cole Protocol, I've added notes into List of Halo media and Halo (series). --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 20:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
      • Actually upon reflection I've changed my mind, I think it would work better if this is considered a supplementary nomination of the existing topic (albeit a very big one). Then the other one would not need to be removed, and the history of the two topics can be combined. Would this be alright by you? rst20xx (talk) 12:19, 10 ~ 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment - I don't think Halo 3 marketing really belongs in this topic, and I think it would be better for Halo (series) to be the lead article and List of Halo media to be a non-lead article in the topic. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:59, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Halo 3 marketing contains information about various Halo media that isn't found elsewhere, i.e., the Iris ARG, and promotional trailers that I believe fall into the "media" scope. That said, changing the media lead article to the series article changes the scope from simply media to halo in general. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 20:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
      • The scope of a topic is not dictated by the lead article. The scope is defined by the collection of articles that are in the topic. The lead article does need to be appropriate for the topic, but it does not have to bind the topic together perfectly. If you really want the list to be the lead I won't oppose on that, I just think it would make the topic have a better structure. It's more a matter of personal preference anyway. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment I tend to agree with Rreagan here, I feel that the series article would make a better central page than a list. To me, its an easier introduction to the topic for the general reader than the list, especially with the more comprehensive coverage of things like the cancelled projects, film and cultural impact—elements that aren't that well covered in the list. The series article, after all, is written as a complete and intentional summary of the franchise. I don't see it as changing the scope of the topic at all, a series is the media that comprises it. Having the media list as a standard part of the topic would still be reasonable. I don't agree Rreagan with removing the Halo 3 marketing article though; as already said by David, I think it provides some insight into other more specific parts of media. -- Sabre (talk) 21:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Support, it all looks good to me now. -- Sabre (talk) 10:50, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Support. I think that works much better now. I still don't think the marketing article really belongs, but it's a minor issue. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:28, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - meets WP:WIAFT.--TRUCO 18:12, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Question shouldn't the characters article be included too? Nergaal (talk) 05:51, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I preferred the old lead. Contrary to Rreagan, I do not think the scope of the topic fits closely enough with the scope of the lead, whereas before I think it was a pretty good fit - very easily equatable to a discography topic for a band. The topic is after all called "Halo media" and not "Halo", so contrary to what Sabre says, the lead shouldn't serve as an introduction to Halo as a whole, but to its related media! rst20xx (talk) 15:15, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Argh!!! --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 15:27, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
      • I agree with rst20xx. Gary King (talk) 16:36, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
        • Sorry! I agree with your original argument that many bits of media are in the marketing article though, hence it should be included. Also I would argue that marketing is a form of media, just less physically tangible than other forms - rst20xx (talk) 19:04, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
        • Oh, and also, Rreagan did say "If you really want the list to be the lead I won't oppose on that"! rst20xx (talk) 19:20, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
          • The series article covers the video games, music, books, and movie. What halo media is the series article lacking? Rreagan007 (talk) 01:34, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
            • Well, my point would more be that the series article also covers characters, factions, etc., which aren't included in this topic. Hence, the scope of the lead is too big for the scope of the topic. (Okay, I'm sure someone would parallel this to the "titles" topics at this point, but actually only StarCraft and Zelda have comparable list articles that could be used, so they are the only two that go against what I'm suggesting, but neither of them have ALL the media included in their topics, so the lead wouldn't perfectly fit the topic there whatever they used!) - rst20xx (talk) 13:21, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
              • You're right it does have extra stuff besides just media in the article, but Halo media is the core of the series article with some extra things added in that relate to the media. And as you point out there are other topics that do the same thing. Just look at the current Halo Trilogy topic. The series article is the lead for that topic, but it clearly contains a lot of information that does not pertain to the trilogy. So if you're correct then the current Halo trilogy topic does not have an appropriate lead either. Also if you are correct and the series article exceeds the scope too much to be the lead article, then it's also too broad in scope to be a non-lead article in the topic. And the Halo 3 marketing article (and maybe other articles in the topic) is too broad as it does not contain just the media. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:45, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
                • But marketing IS a form of media! ...But yes, I would advocate removing the series article from the topic altogether. Anyway, I don't think any of us want to stop this nom over the choice of lead, so shall we put this to a vote, and let whichever side wins be the deciding factor? I vote media - rst20xx (talk) 22:56, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
                  • I'll go along with whatever the majority votes for. I vote series. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:22, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
  • (reset) - alright, well, it seems Sabre would agree with Rreagan007, and Gary King would agree with me. Does anyone else have an opinion? David Fuchs? rst20xx (talk) 13:25, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
    • It depends. If Halo media is the main article, then I think it's a tad disingenuous to have this FTC as a supplementary nom as we're not only adding articles but changing the lead (and scope). --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 18:00, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
      • It's not unprecedented to have supplementary noms/removal candidates remove articles, this has happened a few times actually - eg here (removal candidate), here (sup nom), here (sup nom). In fact in the second case the lead article was changed from media to series! (Because media got demoted from FL, not because of suitability considerations)
      • The only reason I said this should be a sup nom is because procedurally it's easier to carry out, but this can always be considered a fresh nom if the nom type's gonna have an effect on your decision on this - rst20xx (talk) 00:39, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
        • My vote is for media, and I would prefer in that case to have it be a separate nom--if it's too much trouble for you though, just disregard that :) --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 01:38, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
          • OK, I'll separate nom it - rst20xx (talk) 16:48, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment - sorry that I'm saying this so late in the day (got a bit sidetracked by the main article discussion) but I'd like to see more from The Cole Protocol added elsewhere. At the moment The Cole Protocol gets no more a mention in List of Halo media and Halo (series) than the rest of the books do, but as it doesn't have its own article I think it should get more coverage, probably given its own paragraph in the books section of Halo (series). I think this paragraph should be a combination of the lead, background, overview and reception sections that were in the Halo: The Cole Protocol article - rst20xx (talk) 14:08, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
    • But the background section was no more than a minor note that Nylund had been interested in telling the story of Grey Team, per WP:NOT#PLOT it seems a poor idea to add a plot summary beyond the minor mentions; the reception was just a list of bestseller lists, which has been added to the series article. Given its lack of coverage it's kind of undue weight to give the book a bigger treatment than the others. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 14:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
      • OK, you have a point that the lead/background/reception are largely integrated already but I'd still be inclined to add more to the series article. You say that that it'd be undue weight to give this book more coverage than the others, but I'd argue the opposite and point out that at the moment this book has significantly less coverage than the others, because it doesn't have its own article, whereas they do! I guess the difference then is you're thinking of weighting within individual articles whereas I'm thinking within the overall set of all the articles - rst20xx (talk) 14:54, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
        • My thoughts exactly. I just don't see why we should make special provisions and alterations to the structure of an article to accommodate what couldn't stand on its own. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 14:57, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
          • OK well I guess I just figure including the information somewhere provides more useful information for the reader than not including it, but anyway, I should have struck my oppose long ago now and I certainly don't want to hold the nom up over The Cole Protocol - rst20xx (talk) 19:56, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I just did a quick scan, but Halo Wars is not up to par for even B-class standards, IMO. It's Peer Review was absymally short and took place over seven months ago, when practically no information was there. There are sentences in the article like "Units are built, buildings upgraded, and special abilities utilized by using resources that are simply known as supplies," which is a lead topic sentence. The Audio section is just a list of the songs; it does not have any information about song length, and is not formatted well. Halo: Chronicles and Halo: ChroniclesHalo:ODST (whose AfD closed as merge) are also much the same. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 23:46, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I assume you mean Halo 3: ODST as the merge reference? (That AfD was before the project actually had an official name.) I don't see what's the issue with Halo: Chronicles, as it's pretty much the same as it was after the PR; same with ODST. Halo Wars is in the middle of being expanded in preparation for launch; I can guarantee it will be FA within 3 months or whatever the retention period is. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 00:04, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Also, if you checked the citation, you would see that the actual lengths of the tracks for audio have not yet been released; it's just a press release before the soundtrack comes out after the game. The gameplay section was mangled by vandalism; I have reverted it. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 00:05, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Halo Wars seems fine then, though ideally, I would have liked to see more work done for it. Chronicles and ODST simply seem too short for me now. I know that there is probably nothing you can do about it, but I'd really prefer if they were expanded somehow, as I don't think that Start-class articles really cut it. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 00:38, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Nope, not much I can add. Stop by sometime soon for Halo Wars though, I'm adding info on the audio :) --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 00:52, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Close with consensus to promote - and when I'm done, I'll nominate the other topic for removal - rst20xx (talk) 15:51, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Supplementary nominations[edit]

  1. Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Halo media/addition1

Myst series[edit]

10 articles
Good article Myst series
Featured article Myst
Featured article Riven
Featured article Myst III: Exile
Featured article Myst IV: Revelation
Featured article Myst V: End of Ages
Good article Uru: Ages Beyond Myst
Good article Myst Online: Uru Live
Good article Characters
Good article The Myst Reader

This all started when I randomly started improving Myst back in May, and then embarked on a grand campaign to shiny up all that is on the wiki. Uru: Ages Beyond Myst is at FAC currently, but is still GA and not needed to pass FTC. All the Myst articles should have been merged into the ten above. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 16:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Support - good luck with the FAC - rst20xx (talk) 17:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - topic is comprehensive on the Myst franchise, all requirements are fulfilled - Hekerui (talk) 22:46, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Support – no problems that I can see. Excellent work. -- Sabre (talk) 00:42, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Support igordebraga 01:17, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Support. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Support -- Escape Artist Swyer Talk Contributions 01:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The articles Mysterium and Mystralia are missing in the topic. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 13:31, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Fan conventions are a world apart from the actual published material (questions regarding the notability of those articles aside.) --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 19:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
      • I agree such articles are not needed for the topic, but would probably be suitable for supplements. (Guyinblack25 talk 23:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC))
  • Support – looks good. Great work on all those articles. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 08:24, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Support Zginder 2009-02-05T19:14Z (UTC)
  • Support: Was wondering when you were getting to this. I see no major issues. The articles are of high quality, share a defined scope, and an appropriate lead. (Guyinblack25 talk 23:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC))
  • Support - meets WP:WIAFT.--TRUCO 18:11, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - I went ahead and fixed the "Characters" link so it now links to "Characters of Myst" rather than just "Characters." Xnux the Echidna 18:54, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
    Oh whoops, my bad. Sorry! rst20xx (talk) 19:12, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Support; fits the criteria. Good work. Tezkag72私にどなる私のはかい 04:37, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Close with consensus to promote - rst20xx (talk) 13:48, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Numbered highways in Amenia (CDP), New York[edit]

5 articles
Featured article Numbered highways in Amenia (CDP), New York
Amenia, New York road map.svg
Featured article New York State Route 22
Featured article New York State Route 343
Good article U.S. Route 44 in New York
Good article County Route 81 (Dutchess County, New York)

I know its kind of strange, but I like it - it took a little while to do this one, but it turned out really well. I am open to all comments.Mitch32(Go Syracuse) 15:09, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

  • SupportJuliancolton Tropical Cyclone 16:36, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose - I think the scope of this topic probably constitutes cherrypicking by scope reduction (from a topic for the whole of Dutchess County). I know the main article is an FL but I have no idea how that managed to happen, there's nothing listy about it, it's simply a summary style article of four other articles, and (unsurprisingly!) very short at that - rst20xx (talk) 17:37, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
    It isn't cherry picking. And, as far as I am concerned, this was more to split a topic on Amenia (CDP), New York, which could have too much of a broad scope, not dutchess county itself. (Meaning this isn't following the others).Mitch32(Go Syracuse) 22:16, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
    I guess then I'm at a loss as to why a hamlet of 1100ish people deserves an article on the roads going through it! Seems like it's not notable to merit an article separately from one on the roads in the whole county - rst20xx (talk) 23:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
    Wikipedia isn't really about what deserves an article. The list is well-sourced, thus establishing notability. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 23:14, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Question - I am going to ask again, how is a +300 miles highway a SUBtopic in the topic of "roads going through a hamlet of ~1000 people"? Nergaal (talk) 17:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
    This cannot be solved, you know that well enough.Mitch32(Go Syracuse) 22:16, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - The scope of this topic does seem strange, but since the main list on which the topic is based managed to become featured, I have a hard time opposing this topic. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:35, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Support per Rreagan007. Zginder 2009-02-05T18:50Z (UTC)
  • Support - meets WP:WIAFT.--TRUCO 18:11, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Close with consensus to promote - rst20xx (talk) 13:18, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Beauchamp–Sharp Tragedy[edit]

4 articles
Featured article Beauchamp–Sharp Tragedy
Beauchamp kills Sharp.jpg
Featured article Solomon P. Sharp

Good article Jereboam O. Beauchamp

Good article Old Court-New Court controversy

Self-nomination for featured topic. These articles detail Sharp's life, his murder by Beauchamp, Beauchamp's possible motives, and his execution for the crime. This event has served as inspiration for several fictional works, including a play by Edgar Allan Poe and a book by Robert Penn Warren. Acdixon (talk contribs count) 00:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Support. I'm going to say support to this. It's a thin topic, but even so it appears to satisfy the criteria. Also, I think Old Court-New Court controversy could also be added to the topic. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the support. I was unsure if the connection to the Old Court-New Court controversy was sufficient to include it in this topic. It'll be easy enough to do if consensus dictates. It's also a GA, and the topic would still meet the 33% FA threshold if it were added. Acdixon (talk contribs count) 02:16, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Support. It's a small topic but a fascinating read. -- EA Swyer Talk Contributions 15:57, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Glad you enjoyed it, and thanks for the support. Acdixon (talk contribs count) 18:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - meets WP:WIAFT.--TRUCO 18:10, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Support for the topic, but not 100% sure with the controversy article. I am surprised by how many people support a topic "1k miles long highways are a subtopic of highways going through a hamlet" while this obvious topic receives so little support. Nergaal (talk) 05:54, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Support Zginder 2009-02-10T05:33Z (UTC)
  • Support - rst20xx (talk) 12:09, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Close with consensus to promote - rst20xx (talk) 12:07, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Seasons of Bleach[edit]

11 articles
Featured list Bleach, Seasons of
B with flames.png
Featured list Season 1
Featured list Season 2
Featured list Season 3
Featured list Season 4
Featured list Season 5
Featured list Season 6
Featured list Season 7
Featured list Season 8
Featured list Season 9
Peer review Season 10

Long time in the making. All of the seasons of the Bleach anime series have been brought to FL, and the current season, which is still airing, has been peer reviewed (see here. The primary contributor to the season 1 list, Erachima, is not active at the moment, and I am the sole nominator. Cheers, — sephiroth bcr (converse) 21:36, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Support - You should also try to find a free image for the topic box. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Working on getting a free image made by David Fuchs, who is good with graphics stuff. I'll place it here when it's done. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 05:57, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Support. Since it's a TV series, no related free image would be possible. Good work. Tezkag72 05:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Support Saw many of these articles through FLC. Good work. Dabomb87 (talk) 05:14, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Support Zginder 2009-02-01T20:16Z (UTC)
  • Support Excellent effort here getting all those to FL and I know it hasn't been an easy task! Long time in the making, and certainly meets the FT criteria now. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 08:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment - can we at least get something like File:Bleach-bottle.jpg as the image? rst20xx (talk) 03:45, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Uh.... -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:23, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
That was a joke, correct? Dabomb87 (talk) 04:28, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Okay, added an image. I wanted Fuchs to spell out "Bleach" using that format, but if the alternative is a bottle of bleach, I guess his draft version is fine. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 11:14, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Support now - and the image can always be changed later :) rst20xx (talk) 12:58, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - meets WP:WIAFT.TRUCO 18:09, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Close with consensus to promote - rst20xx (talk) 14:10, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Mauritius campaign of 1809–1811[edit]

11 articles
Good article Mauritius campaign of 1809–1811
Combat de Grand Port mg 9425.jpg
Good article Action of 31 May 1809
Good article Raid on Saint-Paul
Good article Action of 18 November 1809
Good article Action of 3 July 1810
Good article Invasion of Île Bonaparte
Good article Battle of Grand Port
Good article Action of 13 September 1810
Good article Action of 18 September 1810
Good article Invasion of Île de France
Good article Battle of Tamatave

Hi, this is a GTC which I have been working at since September. It includes all major actions of this campaign at GA standard.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:14, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Support - fantastic topic that I can see you've worked very hard on. Would Action of 6 April 1809 be a possible addition? It was fought off the north coast of Spain, but directly relates to the rest of the campaign - rst20xx (talk) 07:48, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your support. April 1809 might possibly be an addition, but I would be more inclined to imclude it in a future category on the Blockade of Brest rather than this one.--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:21, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Note - I think I reviewed about half of these articles for GA, but I'd like to Support anyway; they're a fascinating set of articles about a campaign that more should be known about. Skinny87 (talk) 08:31, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Support Fantastic work, Jacky. Meets all the requirements. — Bellhalla (talk) 20:53, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Support -- Meets WP:WIAFT.--TRUCO 02:50, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Support Nergaal (talk) 18:13, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Close with consensus to promote - rst20xx (talk) 19:30, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks to everyone for the comments and supports.--Jackyd101 (talk) 20:53, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

U-27 class submarines[edit]

9 articles
Good article U-27 class submarines
Good article SM U-27
Good article SM U-28
Good article SM U-29
Good article SM U-30
Good article SM U-31
Good article SM U-32
Good article SM U-40
Good article SM U-41
Major contributors: Bellhalla

The latest Good Topic nomination for an Austro-Hungarian submarine class. I believe that all of the requirements are fulfilled. — Bellhalla (talk) 22:04, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Support - excellent work that I have watched grow over the last few months.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:04, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - so let me get this straight. With this nom and the ones already passed, you'll have done sub nos 1-12, 20-23, 27-32 and 40-41. U-13 seems to be nonexistant and U-14 is in a class of its own so basically done. Wait hang on a sec... are there two U-10s and two U-11s? rst20xx (talk) 23:28, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
    • There are five U-10 class subs, one + the class page are GA now (two more are at GAN, with two more to follow in the next day or so). My current plot to take over GTC can be seen hereMwa-ha-ha-ha…Bellhalla (talk) 00:55, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
      • No I mean, what about SM U-69 and SM U-70? Are they not U-10 and U-11 respectively also? Workpage looks good though, I've never seen so many subtopic links, it's glorious! rst20xx (talk) 07:41, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
        • I see now. A-H ordered 5 subs, provisionally numbered U-7 to U-11, but sold them to Germany before they were complete (and they became Germany's U-66 to U-70). Since none were ever commissioned by A-H, U-10 and U-11 were reused for two subs bought from Germany. So, there was only one commissioned sub named U-10 or U-11. — Bellhalla (talk) 13:13, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - with the provision that you and I never end up in the same WikiCup pool ;) Once again, superb work! Cam (Chat) 23:41, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Support keep 'em coming. Nergaal (talk) 00:25, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Support stealing Cam's reason (I wouldn't make it out of that pool alive) —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 00:25, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Support Nice work, Belhalla. Parsecboy (talk) 00:40, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - Nice work as always Bellhalla. -MBK004 01:08, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Support -- Meets WP:WIAFT.--TRUCO 02:50, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Close with consensus to promote - rst20xx (talk) 17:42, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Washington Park, Chicago[edit]

6 articles
Good article Washington Park, Chicago
Washington Park Fountain.jpg
Good article Schulze Baking Company Plant
Good article Washington Park Race Track
Good article Washington Park (Chicago park)
Good article Washington Park Subdivision
Good article Washington Park Court District

On its second go around, this topic now includes both National Register of Historic Places listings in Chicago properties in the neighborhood. I believe it is now complete with respect to the wishes of the discussants at the first nomination (note the last three articles listed in the box are newly minted WP:GAs). I anticipate a subtopic to evolve with Washington Park (Chicago park) as the main article and DuSable Museum of African American History and Fountain of Time when the latter makes its way through the WP:GAC process (hopefully on its first attempt). The subtopic may also include Bud Billiken Parade and Picnic, depending upon commentary. I do not think any of these belong in the main topic here.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:43, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

It should be noted that I am aware that the Chicago 2016 Olympic bid will be evaluated on 2 October 2009. If successful, there will surely be articles under names to be determined for 2016 Olympic Stadium and 2016 Olympic swimming venue. These are both buildings that may very well have articles in October 2009 but not be completed until October 2016. It would be possible that neither article can achieve WP:GA until 2016. I am not sure whether either will belong in this topic or the subtopic, but these will have to be audited articles for several years in all likelihood.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:06, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - this is a very impressive topic, much better than last time around. I find it amusing that we have here a topic where 5 of the 6 articles all have the same name! (As an aside, I am not convinced that the articles would be un-GA-able before 2016, but anyway, we'll have to wait and see who gets the Olympics because this might all come to nothing) - rst20xx (talk) 16:37, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment Support. First of all, I must apologise for never coming back to this discussion after voting oppose last time. It must have slipped my mind, but was very rude of me. secondly, I think this is much closer to completion than the last one was. However I am reluctant to support because I see a problem in the lead article: the In literature section consists of two unconnected sentences and I am not be satisifed that this is compliant with GA standards. Can this section be expanded into a full prose paragraph, or if not at least presented in a more appealing manner? --Jackyd101 (talk) 07:21, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
    • How is it now?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 08:23, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
      • Better (although "aforementioned adjacent demographically similar" is an unusual turn of phrase). I see no reason not to support.
  • Support -- very interesting topic that meets WP:WIAGT.--TRUCO 19:50, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment - I assume the community area is named after the park? And the park is named after George Washington. Is it possible to say that somewhere in the community area article? rst20xx (talk) 22:22, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment (again) - would a navbox be merited? rst20xx (talk) 11:34, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
    • How common are navboxes linking GTs? Is it mandatory? I could do one pretty easily, but is it warranted? I don't know.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:56, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
      • No it's not mandatory but it's pretty common, due to 1.c). I'm not sure if it'd be appropriate here because it's not very common to have navboxes on places like this, but here you've clearly defined what articles are in the area already and so I thought it would be worth asking you your opinion. As for whether it's useful, I would say yes, it makes navigating the articles even easier. Not going to change my vote based on this though - rst20xx (talk) 18:37, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
          • That's good, thanks! rst20xx (talk) 20:29, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Close with consensus to promote - rst20xx (talk) 12:03, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Supplementary nominations[edit]

  1. Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Washington Park (Chicago park)

Yamato class battleships[edit]

4 articles
Good article Yamato class battleships

Good article Yamato

Good article Musashi

Good article Shinano

It is indeed ironic (and fitting) that this is the first MILHIST Topic Nom (though Belhalla has 4 on top of that) to follow after the legendary Iowa-class battleships—the two mightiest classes of warship to have ever existed who ironically, due primarily to logistics and fuel consumption, never met one another in combat. Having worked on this general topic for the last two months, I have finally brought all four of the articles within the project's scope to GA-Status (two others are also A-Class with MILHIST). All articles are GA or higher, and as such I believe that this topic qualifies for GT-Status. Also, since this is my first time doing a GT nom, I apologize in advance if I have goofed in any way. Cam (Chat) 04:40, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Support Zginder 2009-02-10T05:20Z (UTC)
  • Support. Meets the GTC criteria. (Full disclosure: I performed the GA review for Japanese aircraft carrier Shinano, and participated in the A-Class review for Japanese battleship Yamato.) — Bellhalla (talk) 05:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Support -MBK004 05:25, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - and I guess the separate but related class Super Yamato class battleship could be a possible later addition? rst20xx (talk) 12:03, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Possibly, but I doubt it. The Super Yamato class wasn't really related outside of the name and that it was going to be the next class of battleship after the Yamato class. —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 16:11, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - Meets GT criteria. Parsecboy (talk) 12:54, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - Bring on the competition! :) In all seriousness though, everything checks out. Well done! — Preceding unsigned comment added by TomStar81 (talkcontribs)
  • Support - good work Cam, this meets all the criteria. (disclosure: I helped write part of Yamato-class battleship, and reviewed Yamato for GA.) —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 16:11, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Support. Great work by Cam. Of course a never-ending debate goes on between battleship otaku as to what would have happend if the Yamato battleships had met the Iowa battleships in battle, which almost occurred at Leyte Gulf. I'm sure the result would have been fun for everyone except, of course, the sailors involved. Cla68 (talk) 02:50, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - Nice work. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 17:35, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
  • SupportNergaal (talk) 22:17, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - meets WP:WIAGT.--TRUCO 19:51, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Close with consensus to promote - rst20xx (talk) 22:00, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

The Simpsons (season 6)[edit]

23 articles
Featured list The Simpsons (season 6)
Simpsons tv icon.svg
Good article "Bart of Darkness"
Good article "Lisa's Rival"
Good article "Another Simpsons Clip Show"
Good article "Itchy & Scratchy Land"
Good article "Sideshow Bob Roberts"
Good article "Treehouse of Horror V"
Good article "Bart's Girlfriend"
Good article "Lisa on Ice"
Good article "Homer Badman"
Good article "Grampa vs. Sexual Inadequacy"
Good article "Fear of Flying"
Good article "Homer the Great"
Good article "And Maggie Makes Three"
Good article "Bart's Comet"
Good article "Homie the Clown"
Good article "Bart vs. Australia"
Good article "Homer vs. Patty and Selma"
Good article "A Star Is Burns"
Good article "Lisa's Wedding"
Good article "Two Dozen and One Greyhounds"
Good article "The PTA Disbands"
Good article "'Round Springfield"
Good article "The Springfield Connection"
Good article "Lemon of Troy"
Good article "Who Shot Mr. Burns? (Part One)"
Co-nominators: From Season 6 Topic Drive: Scorpion, TheLeftorium, Gran2, Cirt, Gary King and Nergaal.

Just like the rest. Every one is a GA (except the main one, which is a FL). -- Scorpion0422 18:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

German Type U 66 submarines[edit]

6 articles
Good article German Type U 66 submarines
Flag of German Empire (jack 1903).svg
Good article SM U-66
Good article SM U-67
Good article SM U-68
Good article SM U-69
Good article SM U-70
Main contribuitor: Bellhalla

Nomination for Good Topic. All six articles (main plus five individual submarines) are GA — Bellhalla (talk) 22:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Support - the name might need a plural though. Nergaal (talk) 00:43, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - Zginder 2009-01-28T00:59Z (UTC)
  • Support - Rreagan007 (talk) 03:17, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - agree on pluralizing the name, but other than that it meets WP:WIAGT.--TRUCO 04:14, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - and so the progress towards a good topic of good submarine topics continues - rst20xx (talk) 12:27, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support -MBK004 07:21, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - lol'ing at Tst's comment, though it's totally true. I'm telling you Bellhalla, you should move to U.S. battleships... ;) —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 17:34, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Support, a decently put together topic, although I would have thought the War Ensign would be a more appropriate image. -- Sabre (talk) 21:39, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Close with consensus to promote - rst20xx (talk) 15:17, 8 February 2009 (UTC)