Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Featured 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, 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

The Simpsons (season 8)[edit]

Main page Articles
Featured articleThe Simpsons (season 8) Good articleTreehouse of Horror VII - Good articleYou Only Move Twice - Good articleThe Homer They Fall - Good articleBurns, Baby Burns - Good articleBart After Dark - Good articleA Milhouse Divided - Good articleLisa's Date with Density - Good articleHurricane Neddy - Good articleEl Viaje Misterioso de Nuestro Jomer (The Mysterious Voyage of Homer) - Good articleThe Springfield Files - Good articleThe Twisted World of Marge Simpson - Good articleMountain of Madness - Good articleSimpsoncalifragilisticexpiala(Annoyed Grunt)cious - Good articleThe Itchy & Scratchy & Poochie Show - Featured articleHomer's Phobia - Good articleBrother from Another Series - Good articleMy Sister, My Sitter - Good articleHomer vs. The Eighteenth Amendment - Good articleGrade School Confidential - Good articleThe Canine Mutiny - Good articleThe Old Man and the Lisa - Good articleIn Marge We Trust - Featured articleHomer's Enemy - Good articleThe Simpsons Spin-Off Showcase - Good articleThe Secret War of Lisa Simpson

[Every episode article (except one) from this season is of GA status or higher. Homer's Enemy and Homer's Phobia are both FAs, The Simpsons (season 8) is an FL and every other page is a GA, with the exception of My Sister, My Sitter, which recently failed its GA nomination. -- Scorpion0422 23:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Support. You've sold me! Witty Lama 23:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose until remaining non GA becomes GA. LuciferMorgan 01:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Support My Sister, My Sitter seems to have failed mostly out of a difficult in finding material, not lack of completeness (although "currently scores" is unacceptable dated). Including articles slightly too short for Featured or Good status for thesake of completeness has a precedent with the List of Canadian elections FT. Circeus 01:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Support - I don't mind one out of 26 articles being less than GA. Greeves (talk contribs reviews) 01:53, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Support - I've seen the Simpsons Wikiproject work incredibly hard with all their episode articles and support their work being recognised as FT, having passed much of their work to GA. Alientraveller 15:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - Right as one of the 3 primary editors of these articles I'm not going to support it. Not because it doesn't deserve a support, but just because our project has been falsely accused of "vote rigging" in the past, so we tend not to vote in our own articles candidacys anymore. Anyway, other primary contributers, aside from me and Scorpion, Maitch and JameiLei. Gran2 16:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Support - I have no connection to the Simpsons project, and I think its an awesome achievement. Judgesurreal777 22:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Just so you all know, pass or fail, we will be trying our best to get My Sister, My Sitter to GA status, but at the time being its a matter of lack of content and we can't find anything overly notable to add. We are working on it though. -- Scorpion0422 03:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Clearly fails criterion 6. There is no reason to believe that the one episode My Sister, My Sitter is of more "limited subject matter" than the other episodes. There are other potential untapped sources for this topic that I will post shortly at Talk:My Sister, My Sitter. Otherwise, this is an excellently covered topic and I look forward to its completion by the GAing of My Sister, My Sitter.--Pharos 00:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Reply Several current featured topics have pages that are not GA or FA quality. For example, Uranus, which is part of the Solar System FT is neither a GA or FA. -- Scorpion0422 02:01, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
      • The requirements at Wikipedia:Featured topic criteria have been quite clear for some time now. It is perhaps understandable if older FTs that came in under less clear guidelines are retained as legacy and will be reviewed in future, but this should certainly not be the case with new FTs. I will note that there are only two articles in the whole FT system currently against the letter of the criteria, Uranus and Michigan State Spartans (List of Nunavut general elections would qualify as "limited subject matter").--Pharos 02:16, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Argument is nitpicky to an extreme, blocking the largest and most developed topic to date over one is absurd. Judgesurreal777 02:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
How exactly is this nitpicky? It clearly violates the basic criteria of what an FT is.--Pharos 02:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
"Each article is of high quality, including references. Several articles are of featured class, and the remainder all Good Articles or A class. Items that cannot achieve a high rating due to their limited subject matter have passed an individual audit for quality." - My Sister, My Sitter did fail its GAC because of limited content, so wouldn't it be excuseable? -- Scorpion0422 02:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
It failed because the article was not sufficiently developed, not because it's a subject is of inherently limited breadth (like List of Nunavut general elections). It is one of a series of half-hour television programs for a heavily-scrutinized series — there should be sufficient sources for this article. The analogy to 'List of Nunavut general elections' would be something like a two-minute short that aired in the eighth season of The Simpsons, which this is not.--Pharos 02:58, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
My Sister, My Sitter is now a GAC. Gran2 16:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
And has now passed. Gran2 17:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. Congratulations to the project and its writers on this excellent accomplishment.--Pharos 01:38, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Support, looks good to me. -- Phoenix2 (talk, review) 19:46, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Support, this is clearly covered extremely well. Congrats Wikipedia to have the best coverage of The Simpsons' 8th season of any general purpose encyclopedia. ;) Atropos 07:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Support—there's nothing about "My Sister, My Sitter" that really stands out as bad (although the prose needs polishing), so I passed it. Interesting topic, and perhaps proof that individual episode articles can work for some of the high profile series. — Deckiller 16:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Support — A whole bunch of related articles of GA class with similer structure, all linked together. I see no reason not to support. Even before My Sister got promoted, it was well-written and referenced. --Arctic Gnome (talkcontribs) 16:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Support - All articles are of good quality or higher, and it meets the criteria.--Danaman5 21:16, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Promoted by Tompw 09:54, May 27, 2007 (UTC)

Love. Angel. Music. Baby.[edit]

Main page Articles
Love. Angel. Music. Baby. What You Waiting For? - Rich Girl (Gwen Stefani song) - Hollaback Girl - Cool (song) - Luxurious - Crash (Gwen Stefani song)

The box contains the album and all of the singles released from it. Hollaback Girl and Cool (song) are both featured articles, and Love. Angel. Music. Baby., What You Waiting For?, and Rich Girl (Gwen Stefani song) are all listed as good articles. Luxurious has been a good article candidate for two and a half weeks and still isn't even at the top of the list, so I didn't want to wait forever before nominating (on a related note, is anyone willing to review that article to see if it qualifies for GA?). Crash (song) is the only article that hasn't been nominated for GA status, and I believe "achieving such a class is impossible". As I stated at the article's peer review, it's not that far above the notability requirements, and there aren't enough references available to address all the major aspects. Mainly, there were no interviews about the song, no sheet music was released, and very few reviews mentioned the song, so there's not enough reference material to address the music and structure of the song. ShadowHalo 20:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Update: Luxurious and Crash (Gwen Stefani song) have both been promoted to GAs. Hollaback Girl and Cool (song) are featured articles; all other articles listed are good articles. ShadowHalo 02:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Second update: What You Waiting For?, Hollaback Girl, and Cool (song) are now featured articles; all other articles listed are good articles. ShadowHalo 04:23, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Being the first musical nomination to Featured Topics there is no standard to go by, however I would argue that the artist should be part of a nominated set - in this case Gwen Stefani. Currently her article is rated as B-Class and failed a Good Article nomination quite recently. Witty lama 02:18, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
    • I would think it would be the reverse. For example, Chemical element would not be included if the Noble gas series were nominated, and Final Fantasy (series) shouldn't be included when the Final Fantasy VIII series is nominated. Really, the Love. Angel. Music. Baby. series is a subcategory of Gwen Stefani and her work. ShadowHalo 02:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
      • I agree totally with your argument in the examples you have given. Nevertheless, I see an artistic work as more than merely a sub-category of its artist. The purpose of Featured Topics is to be able to present complete concept that is self contained. I don't believe that any analysis of an artistic work would be complete without also discussing its creator. You could legitemately say that you know about Timeline of Canadian elections even if you didn't know a lot about Canada, but you can't legitemately say that you know about Fallingwater if you don't know about Frank Lloyd Wright IMHO. Of course, if all of Gwen Stefani's albums were featured topics then you couldn't have her article as part of all of them but we'll cross that bridge when we come to it. Witty lama 02:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
        • I don't see much information that would make the topic any more complete. For example, there are a few references to her appearance on "Let Me Blow Ya Mind", but Gwen Stefani doesn't (and shouldn't) give any more detail about the collaboration. There are also a couple references to her work with No Doubt, but the series provides enough background that including Gwen Stefani or No Doubt wouldn't add much to the topic. Pretty much, the Gwen Stefani article just summarizes the information from the Love. Angel. Music. Baby. series (per Wikipedia:Summary style) and then has for the most part irrelevant information about her other projects. ShadowHalo 03:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
        • Right now we have no examples of a topic that contains within it a higher-level article that the main article, and Love. Angel. Music. Baby. is clearly a subtopic of Gwen Stefani. But I think User:Witty lama has a point. A study of an artistic work would not be complete without a fairly thorough study of the artist. I think FT's goal of "thoroughly covering all parts of that topic through several high-quality articles" takes priority over the convention we've built of having the main article be the highest-level article in the topic. However this goes, I think we will have to talk about making a slight modification to the FT criteria to explain what to do in future cases like this. --Arctic Gnome (talkcontribs) 03:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
        • I concur that a bio article is necessary for any complete discussion about an artists theme or works as a topic. Whereas, in a featured article about an album an internal link is sufficient, in a featured topic the artist is an integral part of the topic at hand. I would oppose this nomination without a GA Stefani article. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 14:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Gwen Stefani should not be included in this nomination. How can the album be the main article with the artist as a sub article? That does not make any sense. Personally, I would have tried for main article FA before trying for FT. Jay32183 22:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Aside from the discussion of Stefani herself, I do agree with Jay32183 that the top article should be an FA before promotion. Witty lama 01:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
    • I did put Love. Angel. Music. Baby. at FAC, but there were concerns about the tone of the article. I put in a request at WP:LoCE for a copyedit, but since nobody did a copyedit during the FAC, it has now been moved to the main list and it looks like it'll get a copyedit sometime in June since the top of the list is from January. I'm a little confused as to why the lead article would need to be FA when WP:WIAFT doesn't mention anything like that. ShadowHalo 11:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
      • This is true that having an FA main article is not one of the official criteria, but as the FT process is still quite new these criteria are still in formation. All of the current FTs have a FA top article (except the one on what is by far the single largest FT group). The smaller the size of the set of articles, the more necessary it is in my eyes that the percentage of FAs increases - especially the top article. This being one of the smaller sets, I think it is necessary.
  • Comment The main article seems to tell me what I need to know about her to understand the song.--Rmky87 14:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - the main article being FA is not a requirement. I'm more concerned about the non-GAness of the last 2 articles, but I still need to think my vote over. --PresN 19:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Conditional Support- My support is conditional based on Luxurious getting GA'd, but I disagree that Crash is non-GAable, and I think you should nominate it anyways. --PresN 19:44, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
    • I've nominated Crash (song) at GAC then. I'm not sure how long FTCs usually last, but the GAC at the top is from March 18, so it could be a few weeks before it's reviewed. ShadowHalo 22:54, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Luxurious is now a GA, so supporting fully now. --PresN 14:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - May I please ask why does "Crash" have the name Crash (song)? There are two other song articles called "Crash". I thought the convention is to name all songs with the artists' name (ie. Crash (Gwen Stefani song)) with Crash (song) being a dab page. Should this page be moved? RaNdOm26 06:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Yeah, I've gone ahead and moved it; I'll fix the links to Crash (song) sometime today. ShadowHalo 14:14, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


The only problem I see with the nomination is that Gwen Stefani isn't included as a subtopic. I wholly, 110% disagree with the assertion by others that the album cannot be a main topic with the artist as a related article. In this context, the album would be the more important article and Stefani the less important article as Stefani isn't the main topic being nominated. If Stefani was at least GA, I'd likely support though I won't at present. 95% there though. Good luck ShadowHalo - my note to other editors concerned about the album only being GA is that the author is rather determined for FA and sooner or later that album will be FA. I'm curious as to the outcome of this nomination, since I wish to get Christ Illusion to a featured topic and dislike the assertion that a band cannot be a less important article in the context of the nominated topic (ie. the album). LuciferMorgan 08:44, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, following the discussion on this point at Featured Topic Criteria I have withdrawn my objection on this point (even though I was the one who first raised the concern). Witty lama 21:30, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Comment - alright, we have a page full of comments, and I'm the only one who's voted either way. Time to cast your votes or !votes, people! --PresN 16:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment To add to the !voting, anyone who has taken a look at the articles may also want to comment at the FAC for What You Waiting For? (since it might be relevant to this candidacy, there are currently five supports and no objections). Also, I think LuciferMorgan knows my habits a little too well; just in case the consensus does change, I'm working on bringing Gwen Stefani to GA (so far). I had been avoiding that article like the plague because of edits where people think that the fact that VH1 did a special must be mentioned. The article should be at WP:GAN sometime tomorrow. ShadowHalo 00:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I have no objections with the topic being promoted. I think it should have Stefani as a subtopic, but I know that if this is required for FT ShadowHalo is only too willing to bring it to standard. Another thing is I think he intends getting Stefani as a whole to FT also in the future. So promote, despite my hesitations as regards chart tables. LuciferMorgan 21:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Gwen Stefani is now a GA. I haven't added it to the nomination since it seems out of place to me (it seems like Harajuku Lovers Tour 2005 and/or Harajuku girl should be have to be bundled with it), but if there is consensus changes here or at Wikipedia talk:Featured topic candidates that the artist should be included, the article is up to standards now. ShadowHalo 07:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Support since the topic meets all criteria, also since some of the articles have attained FA status. Cliff smith 00:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Conditional Support - The only requirement that this doesn't meet is that all articles should share a category with each other. Currently, all of the songs are in Category:Gwen Stefani songs and the lead article is in Category:Gwen Stefani albums. I would recommend merging the two existing categories into a general Category:Gwen Stefani. Alternatively, you could create a new Category:Love. Angel. Music. Baby.. --Arctic Gnome (talkcontribs) 06:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
    • I guess the fact that both the song category and the album category are in the general Gwen Stefani category might be good enough for the requirement. --Arctic Gnome (talkcontribs) 02:59, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Sorry, I missed your last comment. I've asked at Wikipedia talk:Featured topic criteria#Criterion 4. The current criterion seems a little vague as to whether or not they need to be in the same category or if parent categories will do, so it seems like a good idea to clarify this. ShadowHalo 04:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  • After much discussion, this topic has two supports, no objections, and my request to have the categories re-examined. Someone else that is not a major contributor to the articles is going to have to weigh in on this so that there are at least four votes. --Arctic Gnome (talkcontribs) 02:59, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Actually, there are three supports: PresN, LuciferMorgan, and myself (I know 4 are needed nonetheless). Cliff smith 01:45, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
And I'll support given that there is discussion to change the criterion regarding categories. There are no longer any major objections, so I think I'll promote this now. --Arctic Gnome (talkcontribs) 16:29, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Promote - 4 supports, no major objections, and all comments dealt with. --Arctic Gnome (talkcontribs) 16:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)