Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/Featured log/February 2014
Good topic candidates: view - edit - history
8 articles
.jpg)
- Contributor(s): Brigade Piron, also Coldplay Expért
I've been working on the coverage of Belgium's history in the Second World War from some time now. I believe that these 8 articles cover all the important topic areas on the subject in some detail and would make a good addition to the Good Topics currently available. All of them are good articles. --Brigade Piron (talk) 16:46, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- Support. This is in my opinion a solid nomination. The articles above are all high quality and together thoroughly cover Belgium's World War II story. My only reservation is regarding the image: while I understand we want something with the Belgian flag in it, it seems to me somewhat jarring to have an SS recruiting poster as a representation of Belgium in World War II (apart from the obvious Nazi overtones, it might give the misleading impression that most Belgians supported Germany). I would recommend this image, a Belgian flag with the word "Liberté"—much more clearly Belgian, and certainly less controversial. (I think this picture would be good in the Belgium in World War II article too, perhaps even at the top). This is just a suggestion though and doesn't affect my support. Well done Brigade Piron on all this work, and good luck! —Cliftonian (talk) 13:27, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you Cliftonian! I have changed the picture on your suggestion. I'm certainly not emotionally invested in it, and picked the original photo only as a clearly WWII-related thing with Belgian flag. I agree the "Liberté" one is an improvement. Brigade Piron (talk) 17:01, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
- Comment: Can the page name for "Belgian Congo in World War II" be changed to "Belgian Congo during World War II"? It would be nice to have it consistent with German occupation of Belgium during World War II. Vctrbarbieri (talk) 13:31, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for your comment Vctrbarbieri! I think on balance that I'd oppose a rename. There isn't a universal rule, but the general concensus seems to be "Foo in War X" - if you look at Template:WWII history by nation (except the South American ones which are all the work of a single editor) there is a general trend. The nearest thing to a discussion of this that I know of also ended in a rename to "in". Personally, I think "during" implies and article about this history of Foo in the general period, not its involvement in the conflict which is the intended scope. Brigade Piron (talk) 14:54, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
- Very well. By the way, I've noticed that Ref 48 in Battle of Belgium is broken. Was it changed to this? http://niehorster.orbat.com/021_belgium/1940_oob/ghq_navy.html Also, Ref 84 no longer links either. Perhaps it has become http://niehorster.orbat.com/021_belgium/1940_organ/40_div-cav/div-cav_.html Vctrbarbieri (talk) 15:26, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
- Ref 59 in Belgian Resistance is broken. Not sure what happened to it. Vctrbarbieri (talk) 16:22, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for your comment Vctrbarbieri! I think on balance that I'd oppose a rename. There isn't a universal rule, but the general concensus seems to be "Foo in War X" - if you look at Template:WWII history by nation (except the South American ones which are all the work of a single editor) there is a general trend. The nearest thing to a discussion of this that I know of also ended in a rename to "in". Personally, I think "during" implies and article about this history of Foo in the general period, not its involvement in the conflict which is the intended scope. Brigade Piron (talk) 14:54, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for that - I've fixed the Battle of Belgium ones. I'm also not sure about ref 59 on Belgian Resistance - if you look for the title in a search engine, the url seems correct and the page is still there...Brigade Piron (talk) 08:44, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
- I've fixed Ref 59. It was broken because the link ended in full stop ".pdf." -- I've casually checked all web site references and apart from one other that I think was having server problems they all seem to check out fine. The only real problem I have is that there doesn't seem to be a link to an article that specifically deals with just the liberation of Belgium inside any of the articles here i.e. (Allied) Operation ?????, Battle of, Campaign to, Liberation of, etc. I would have thought that would have been momentous enough to get its own article. Despite that, it seems comprehensive and well sourced. Support Vctrbarbieri (talk) 11:54, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for that - I've fixed the Battle of Belgium ones. I'm also not sure about ref 59 on Belgian Resistance - if you look for the title in a search engine, the url seems correct and the page is still there...Brigade Piron (talk) 08:44, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
- Delegate comment - I noticed that a book wasn't made for the topic. Probably should make one for it. GamerPro64 14:09, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
- Support. Excellent effort by Brigade Piron. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 05:27, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
- Support even decided to help creating the book. igordebraga ≠ 17:15, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
- Cheers! Brigade Piron (talk) 21:57, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
- You're welcome, though fixing the maintenance templates that showed up in the Book Report would help your case... igordebraga ≠ 23:58, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
- Cheers! Brigade Piron (talk) 21:57, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
- Closed with a consensus to promote to Good Topic. --十八 12:11, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
12 articles
.jpg)
I am nominating this for a Good topic because I believe that this topic meets all of the criteria, as all of the articles in the scope are now Good articles --Simon (talk) 13:00, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
- Comment: Why are there no threads for "Cease Fire" and "Best of Me"? prism △ 13:08, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
- @Prism: Those two articles once existed, however they were deleted (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cease Fire (song) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Best of Me (Christina Aguilera song)) — Simon (talk) 13:23, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
- Then, I support. A comprehensive topic that has all of the possible articles. prism △ 13:34, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
- Comment – Book:Lotus (album) needs correction. Most of the articles are coming up as red links in the book report. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 15:11, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
- @IndianBio: Actually, I have fixed it this morning (Vietnam time) and still waiting for the book report bot to correct the status — Simon (talk) 15:15, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
- Ok that's great. I will wait for the bot to generate the report once and get back with my support. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 15:18, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you for your comment — Simon (talk) 15:20, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
- The book has been re-reported — Simon (talk) 04:22, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
- My happy support for the first Xtina GT. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 17:04, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
- Support; All of these articles are thorough and comprehensive. These editors have put a lot of effort into this topic for the last two years, and the quality of the articles definitely shows it! WikiRedactor (talk) 17:56, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
- Support. Always love a good album GT. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:12, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
- Closed with a consensus to promote to Good Topic. --十八 03:29, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
12 articles
- Contributor(s): 12george1, CrazyC83, Hurricanehink, Juliancolton, Lincher, Miss Madeline, RaNdOm26
The above are articles associated with the 2000 Atlantic hurricane season. Although rather dole is comparison with more recent hurricane seasons, the articles certainly aren't dole. With a total of 12 Good Articles, this is probably the largest GTC I have participated in. After the timeline article was merged, myself and a few other editors spent time improving the older Good Articles to ensure little or no trouble here. Hurricane Keith also underwent a reassessment this year and retained GA status. Now I want to see the opinion of other Wikipedians regarding whether or not this collection of articles should be considered a Good Topic. --12george1 (talk) 22:01, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- Support - I went through last night and did reference clean-up (not a significant contributor in any) throughout all of the articles, while GeorgeC did prose corrections. All the articles should satisfy good article criteria, thus making this a good list. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 02:14, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
- Delegate Comment - Can we get some more discussion in this nomination so we can gather a consensus? GamerPro64 03:18, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
- Support. Great contributions to science and most educational. Thank you to contributors 12george1, CrazyC83, Hurricanehink, Juliancolton, Lincher, Miss Madeline, and RaNdOm26. — Cirt (talk) 05:30, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
- Support why not? YE Pacific Hurricane 17:50, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
- Closed with a consensus to promote to Good Topic. - GamerPro64 01:46, 14 February 2014 (UTC)