Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Featured log/January 2009

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, 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

Nobel Laureates[edit]

7 articles
Featured article Nobel Laureates
Nobel Prize.png
Featured article Chemistry
Featured article Literature
Featured article Peace
Featured article Physics
Featured article Physiology or Medicine
Featured article Economics

Co-nominators: The epic duo of Scorpion0422 and Sephiroth BCR

This is my first (and most likely last, unless I start watching anime I've never heard of or if Sephiroth moves to Canada) collaboration with Sephiroth. I've always hoped that someone would start work on the Nobel lists, I never thought that it would be me. The definition of this topic is strictly the six main prizes and will not include the list of women laureates or the various University lists. Enjoy! -- Scorpion0422 23:38, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Support as co-nom. Probably will never move to Canada or convince Scorpion to watch anime, but this was a fun collaboration. Kudos to Scorpion for his work. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 23:47, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Well alternatively, I could move to the U.S. of A or you could watch television shows or sports that I have heard of. -- Scorpion0422 23:55, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
      • I'm sure where I live has much better weather than any spot in Canada ;-) And IMO, I prefer this television show (although I do watch The Simpsons occasionally). Ironically though, my real life job is a ice hockey referee, but I've never had the initiative to edit any ice hockey-related articles. That all said, since you recently joined WP:PRIZE, I'm sure there will be some collaboration we'll find among all those awards-related articles. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 09:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - nice job! TheLeftorium 23:45, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak support - this is effectively a "Lists of Nobel Laureates" topic, and includes articles on each of the prizes, so I think is comprehensive. It is a shame though that you did not include all the lists - this topic is missing List of female Nobel Laureates, List of Nobel Laureates by country and List of Nobel Laureates by university affiliation - rst20xx (talk) 23:56, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
    Oh wait, also List of black Nobel Laureates and Nobel Prize laureates by secondary school affiliation. But anyway, doesn't matter - rst20xx (talk) 02:14, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
    Those would be valid inclusions, but I think that the topic can count as being complete without them because individuals in the "by country" and "female" lists are already included in the overall lists. --Arctic Gnome (talkcontribs) 21:06, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support I think this topic is comprehensive enough and meets the criteria.—Chris! ct 01:52, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - excellent topic, I've seen the work Scorpion has put into these articles, and it is marvelous how it is a complete topic now.Truco 01:55, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support Rreagan007 (talk) 04:59, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support Topic has no gaps and most of the rst's suggestions might actually create gaps. Still, I wonder if the 6 separate lists could have more available images added to the tables. Nergaal (talk) 07:20, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
    • The unused images do not have correct licenses or are not attributed correctly; I was a stickler about that at the FLCs ;) Dabomb87 (talk) 18:52, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - per above. Gran2 11:45, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support Watched every Laureate list sail through FLC (although one had to go through twice). Great job Scorpion and Sephiroth. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:52, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support some fantastic work here. BencherliteTalk 22:21, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Pile-on Support I supported these on FLC, and this is an excellent topic! Though I see no reason why List of female Nobel Laureates shouldn't also be included. Reywas92Talk 02:47, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support, great work and it seems a shame that this might be your only collaboration together. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 11:10, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support Zginder 2009-01-15T14:57Z (UTC)
  • Support, great work - thanks for the effort. Please run a check on F.A. Hayek - he was born Austrian who lived some time in the UK, during which period he also became British subject. However, his Nationality should be referred to as 'Austria/UK'. See for instance: H.J. Hennecke, Friedrich August von Hayek: Die Tradition der Freiheit, Wirtschaft und Finanzen: 2000 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.119.200.88 (talk) 13:47, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Close with consensus to promote - rst20xx (talk) 22:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Seasons of Avatar: The Last Airbender[edit]

Featured topic
4 articles
Featured article Avatar: The Last Airbender, Seasons of
Avatar arrow.svg
Featured article Season 1
Featured article Season 2
Featured article Season 3

This is a nomination on behalf of myself (User:NuclearWarfare), User:Haha169, User:Rau J, User:Parent5446, User:Pakaru and User:The Placebo Effect. I tried to get people who had worked on multiple articles, and I definitely got everyone from the season ones. User:Dylan0513, User:Fyre2387, and User:Wikialexdx were also involved on the main list, as were a whole host of others. I was unsure of how much depth to go into on this, so I'll just leave it at that.

Well, this is the entirety of the Avatar seasons that exists and is likely to ever exist, so I figure I might as well nominate this for a Featured Topic. The season articles are all are featured lists and the series finale is a GA, which seems to fit the Featured topic criteria. I was debating trying to get the actual Avatar: The Last Airbender, but the other TV series articles didn't have them, so I hope this is good enough. Also, because Sozin's Comet was merely the season finale, I'm unsure the title of this FTC needs changing. Please tell me what you think. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 20:00, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Under the current scope of the topic, I think Sozin's Comet: The Final Battle should be removed from the topic since it is a series finale and not a season. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:23, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd really like to include Sozin's Comet, if possible. Is there a way to retitle this so that it is possible to include it? NuclearWarfare (Talk) 20:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
The only way (in my opinion) you could get it in would be to expand the scope of the topic beyond just the seasons and make the topic "Avatar: The Last Airbender." You'd have to get Avatar: The Last Airbender and probably List of Avatar: The Last Airbender characters up to at least good article and featured list status respectively. You could always just remove the series finale for now and work toward an expanded topic later Rreagan007 (talk) 20:38, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
As that was one of my long term goals anyway, I shall remove Sozin's Comet. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 20:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Oh well, at least the topi is fully featured now :) Dabomb87 (talk) 18:57, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support now that the finale has been removed. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:48, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - well done - rst20xx (talk) 20:57, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - well done, since I also reviewed some of the FLC's of this topic :)Truco 23:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - Since Nuclear put me in as one of the nominators, I'm not sure if I can still support...but I'm still supporting, nonetheless. :) No criteria that says it shouldn't be there. --haha169 (talk) 00:14, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support-Zginder 2009-01-10T00:56Z (UTC)
  • SupportJuliancolton Tropical Cyclone 04:20, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - excellent work. TheLeftorium 23:46, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - per above. Gran2 11:46, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support Meets all criteria. Thanks for bearing with my nitpicks on the individual seasons' FLCs! Dabomb87 (talk) 18:57, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support because you desperately need my vote. –thedemonhog talkedits 23:55, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose so that this does not have 100% consensus. Not NW (Talk) 00:12, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
    • That was...interesting. Thanks for scaring me there, Nuclear. :) Too bad the history tab reveals everything. *sigh* I would've loved to debate an easy battle. --haha169 (talk) 05:12, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Close with no consensus to promote - 10 supports to one oppose makes a majority, but not consensus
    Close with consensus to promote - just kidding, sorry about the delay in promotion - rst20xx (talk) 22:37, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

USA PATRIOT Act, Title III[edit]

3 articles
Good article USA PATRIOT Act, Title III
Seal of the United States Congress.svg
Featured article Subtitle A
Good article Subtitle B
Main contribuitor: Ta bu shi da yu

Subtitle C does not have its own article. Nergaal (talk) 15:14, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Should Subtitle C have its own article? Gary King (talk) 17:10, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
To me it doesn't seem to be broad enough. Nergaal (talk) 17:39, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
That's not the point Gary was making. Your statement is "Subtitle C does not have its own article", this isn't what you meant to say because clearly subtitle III does have its own article. I believe that you probably meant to write "Subtitle C should not have its own article". If that's the case, then I'm afraid I must respectfully disagree, and suggest that you should have taken this to AFD. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 10:06, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
I swear, I am SUCH an idiot. Forgive me, Nergaal. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 08:24, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Neutral - I was going to ask the same thing. Ta bu shi da yu retired on 16 November 2007, having got the articles to their current statuses in 2006, so it's not like he got 3/4 of the way through this project but then retired before he could create the Section C article. He doesn't have any rough drafts of a Section C article amongst his many subpages, either. But I am still not convinced that it can't merit its own article, so as a result I shall vote neutral.
I wish we had him here, because then he could explain to us why it is/isn't notable. This is why, where possible, topic contributors should be notified of nominations - rst20xx (talk) 20:44, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
It doesn't looks like the notability is the main issue, but the length of the subtitle; it has about 1/3 to 1/2 of the number of sections compared to the other two. Nergaal (talk) 23:21, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
So you're saying that notability has nothing to do with why the section C article doesn't exist?!? Do you in fact think it's notable enough to exist, then? rst20xx (talk) 00:25, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Nope. I am saying that since the subtitle C is significantly shorter than the other ones, all that is needed to be said about it is said in the main article. On the other hand, the other sections have more to be said about them so they go into more detail than C. Nergaal (talk) 00:32, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Also, this User:Ta bu shi da yu/Focus article, might be relevant. Nergaal (talk) 00:53, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Comment Subtitle C has more subsections than Subtitle A on the Title III main article. That seems to suggest that it could be enough for a separate article —Goodtimber (walk/talk) 01:49, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Nope. Assuming that wikisource is right, there are 20/16/7 sections per subtitle. Nergaal (talk) 02:39, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
I meant Wikipedia-type subsections. But, knowing what you just said, I think that is more important. —Goodtimber (walk/talk) 03:47, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support. I think the topic is complete. I could only speculate why the original editors did not create a separate article for Subtitle C, but I've looked at the articles and the text of the statute, and I don't really see much of a need for one. It looks to me like Subtitle C is a fairly straightforward criminal statute, and it is adequately covered in the main article. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support I think that this meets the criteria. WE do not need an artilce on every section of every law in every county. Zginder 2009-01-22T16:20Z (UTC)
  • Support - although a separate article for subsection C could have been of good use, I don't think its necessary to have all sections as articles. --TRUCO 01:01, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Am I misreading the featured topic criteria 3.(a)(i) when I interpret it as requiring at least two featured items per featured topic? This only appears to have one. As an additional point, Ta bu shi da yu has actually returned to Wikipedia in the form of User:Tbsdy lives, so those of you who were wishing he was still around might consider directing your questions there-wards. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 07:02, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
    This is a good, not featured, topic nomination - rst20xx (talk) 10:14, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
  • This is why it would be good to have split the GTC and FTC to separate pages.--TRUCO 15:45, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I wrote this. It's good material, but the more I look at it, the less I think it should be featured. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 13:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
    • First time I've ever seen featured topics, I thought that this was FARC! Silly me. In that case, I don't really see the problem, and also if the one submitting the article doesn't believe the Title III should have its own article, I must first strenuously disagree, and secondly urge them to take it to the correct area of Wikipedia, which is WP:AFD. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 10:06, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Close with consensus to promote - despite some confusion about whether section C deserves its own article, I think that Tbsdy lives believes it shouldn't - rst20xx (talk) 14:00, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Not true. I said that I didn't think the quality was high enough, not that it doesn't deserve its own article. I got confused as to what I was debating. Sorry for any confusion. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 08:13, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

HD 40307[edit]

All four articles are Good Articles, so it should be a Good Topic. I reviewed the article on the star. My role here is to recommend and assist. Substantive questions should be directed to User:Starstriker7, User:Icalanise, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomy. Crystal whacker (talk) 23:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it can be formatted like this:
4 articles
Good article HD 40307
80px
Good article HD 40307 b
Good article HD 40307 c
Good article HD 40307 d
Yeah, that's better. --Starstriker7(Talk) 03:25, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
I added a space between the plus symbol and the article titles. The template looks okay. Crystal whacker (talk) 19:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support. This looks like all the other star system topics to me. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:34, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support Zginder 2009-01-07T20:26Z (UTC)
  • Comment - needs a navbox - cf. HD 217107 - rst20xx (talk) 20:54, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Made one and added. --PresN 21:16, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support then - rst20xx (talk) 01:57, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - meets WP:WIAGT.--Truco 23:21, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Close with consensus to promote - rst20xx (talk) 18:13, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

X-Men films[edit]

previous FTC

5 articles
Good article X-Men films
RomanX-01.png
Good article X-Men
Good article X2
Good article X-Men: The Last Stand
Peer review X-Men Origins: Wolverine
Major contributors: Alientraveller and Wildroot
Note: X-Men Origins: Wolverine was not added until 12:05, December 23, 2008

Alientraveller brought the main article, X-Men (film series), and X-Men: The Last Stand to GA-status. I brought X-Men (film) and X2 (film) to GA-status, with Alientraveller contributing with minor help. Every film article is of GA status, which fulfills all criteria for a Good Topic. Also, concerning X-Men Origins: Wolverine, which is an upcoming film. Wikipedia's stance on adding articles like that to this Good topic gives the major contributors three months after release of Wolverine to get to GA-status. That's why X-Men Origins: Wolverine is not listed, yet. Wildroot (talk) 17:57, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I was not aware of that, but how do you exactly peer review an article that is Future-class? Wildroot (talk) 21:57, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Same as any other article. Just open a peer review and ask for input from other people. Gary King (talk) 22:08, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, but that peer review won't happen for another five-six months, so how does it affect this current nomination? Wildroot (talk) 22:09, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
It can be peer reviewed even if the film is unreleased. Issues that can be brought up include: prose, more information to add, etc. Gary King (talk) 22:11, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
But will it affect the current nomination? Wildroot (talk) 23:53, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes, criterion 3c of the FT criteria mandates that "Items that are ineligible for featured or good article status, either due to their limited subject matter or due to inherent instability, must have passed an individual quality audit that included a completed peer review, with all important problems fixed." (italics are mine). The topic cannot be promoted until that article is peer reviewed. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:03, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
I see. Alright then. I will get X-Men Origins: Wolverine peer reviewed, and then I shall re-nominate. Therefore this is Withdrawn by nominator, and since I'm not an administrator, I can't archive this page, so an administrator reading this message right now should do something about that. Wildroot (talk) 01:25, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Doesn't have to be an administrator that does that. Anyone can do it; preferably someone who knows what they're doing though, of course. Gary King (talk) 02:50, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
If it's just one PR, this article can be put on hold until it's done. That way it saves having to include failed FTCs in all the article histories. --Arctic Gnome (talkcontribs) 03:41, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Sounds good Gary King (talk) 03:43, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, sounds good to me as well. We'll put this nomination on hold for a couple of weeks to wait for X-Men Origins: Wolverine to get peer reviewed. I've already started. Wildroot (talk) 05:34, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Also, is there a free use image that this topic could use? Always cool to have one! :) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 05:51, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - can we rename the topic to "X-Men feature films"? The current name doesn't cover its entire scope due to Generation X (film) - rst20xx (talk) 01:35, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't know. Generation X was more of a backdoor pilot, and has no continuity with these four films. Generation X is just one of those weird awkward things that I'm not sure of. Wildroot (talk) 02:00, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
It is an X-Men film, though, per a few things including this. Gary King (talk) 02:27, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't think that's really necessary either. "Film" can have different definitions. One very common definition of a "film" is a theatrically released feature film. I think just using "film" in this way as a shorthand is perfectly acceptable. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:17, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. Wildroot (talk) 19:14, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Alright: X-Men Origins: Wolverine has finished its peer review. Let the topic candidacy continue. Wildroot (talk) 18:07, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

  • Support then - rst20xx (talk) 15:12, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:14, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - Zginder 2008-12-26T16:51Z (UTC)
  • Support - igordebraga 02:22, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - Now that 'Wolverine' has been peer reviewed. Hpfan9374 (talk) 12:36, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Close with consensus to promote - rst20xx (talk) 17:09, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Constitution of the Roman Republic[edit]

5 articles
Good article Constitution of the Roman Republic
Gaius Gracchus Tribune of the People.jpg
Good article History
Good article Senate
Good article Legislative Assemblies
Good article Executive Magistrates
Major contributors: RomanHistorian and me.

Mos maiorum. Nergaal (talk) 23:03, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I wrote much of the article, and what you might be seeing is my American definition of "constitution". In the United States, the Constitution of the US is one in the same as "Governmental Structure of the US". The US constitution itself simply establishes the three branches of government, gives them powers, and establishes a system of checks and balanaces. The amendments to the US Constitution are a mixture of revisions to the body of the constitution (amendment 12 for example) as well as items of a legislative, rather than process nature (amendment 1 for example). I believe in Europe "constitution" has a broader meaning, concerning actual laws, rather than straight up process. As for your other points, I summarized History of the Constitution of the Roman Republic under Constitutional history (509-49 BC) and The transition from Republic to Empire (49-27 BC), and Legislative Assemblies of the Roman Republic under Legislative Assemblies. Conflict of the Orders, Constitutional Reforms of Lucius Cornelius Sulla and Constitutional Reforms of Julius Caesar are among the topics discussed in History of the Constitution of the Roman Republic. Curiate Assembly, Century Assembly, Tribal Assembly and Plebeian Council are discussed in Legislative Assemblies of the Roman Republic. I tried to build this Roman Constitution series like a pyramid, where the higher levels (such as this article) simply summarize articles lower on the hierarchy.RomanHistorian (talk) 03:32, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. Using the more traditional definition of constitution as being how a government is constituted is fine with me. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:18, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - I agree with the above. This is a great example of a historic topic. Zginder 2008-12-24T16:23Z (UTC)
  • Close with consensus to promote - rst20xx (talk) 16:08, 2 January 2009 (UTC)