Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/Featured log/November 2012
Good topic candidates: view -edit -history
- Contributor(s): Hahc21
All articles related have already achieved good article status, sot they are ready to make a Good Topic. --— ΛΧΣ21™ 04:29, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
- Technically this topic seems to pass the criteria. Nergaal (talk) 16:58, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- Is that a support? XD — ΛΧΣ21™ 22:47, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
- Support. As I had a quick look over the articles, I decided that all of them pass the criteria for a featured topic. — Tomíca(T2ME) 21:32, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- Support, agree with analysis as provided by Tomica (talk · contribs), above. — Cirt (talk) 06:23, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- Support. GRAPPLE X 14:07, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
- Closed with a consensus to promote to Good Topic - GamerPro64 15:52, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
- Contributor(s): Jason Rees, Cyclonebiskit
The 2001-02 South Pacific cyclone season topic was primarily worked on by User:Cyclonebiskit with minimal edits from me. The season was a near average tropical cyclone season with 5 tropical cyclones existing within the basin during the season.Jason Rees (talk) 01:15, 14 October 2012 (UTC) --Jason Rees (talk) 01:15, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- Support – Everything's in order here. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 01:16, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- Support. I tried to get CB to do this nomination, but it appears he is too busy with college. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:16, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- Support - Collection meets all the criteria for a featured topic, no additional items are necessary in this topic. Kudos. TheAustinMan(Talk·Works) 01:18, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- Support. As the reviewer of the main article of the 2001–02 South Pacific cyclone season, I do believe everything encompassed within this season deserves to be recognized as a Good Topic.--12george1 (talk) 01:59, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- Technically this passes the criteria, but I would like if you guys decide to create topics based on decades or something like that. Having dozens of topics on each year, on each basin, with two or three storms each seems quite lame from a project as prolific as yours. Nergaal (talk) 16:56, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- How?????? YE Pacific Hurricane 23:22, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- Nergaal, agreed somewhat, but for what it's worth, the project is working toward a good topic for each season in the calendar year 2002, of which this would be a part of. As for what's lame or not, there are many other 3 article good topics, just check out all of the ones in the military. I'm not saying they're lame, just that if it meets the criteria, it meets the criteria. In addition, such a topic you suggested wouldn't work, as there isn't a decade-based article that we'd use for the main article. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:21, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- Support, quite significant contribution, good quality improvement effort across multiple articles, scientific and educational. — Cirt (talk) 06:23, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Is there a reason this hasn't been promoted? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:57, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
- I'd ping TAWX to do it (not on IRC right now, so I can't). YE Pacific Hurricane 17:00, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
- He can't, he's already supported. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:03, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
- Is there a rule if you support you can't promote? I've seen FAC delegates support and oppose FA's. YE Pacific Hurricane 17:09, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
- He can't, he's already supported. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:03, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
- Closed with a consensus to promote to Good Topic - GamerPro64 15:58, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Norid
edit
- Contributor(s): Arsenikk
Norid is the Norwegian domain name registrar of three country code top-level domains, .bv, .no and .sj. Managing these domains is the sole activity of Norid. Another way to look at the topic is that these are the three domains issued to Norway and the agency set to manage them. Good article nomination. Arsenikk (talk) 20:05, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- Support--Kürbis (✔) 09:14, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
- Support but I would prefer changing ".no" to "".no" domain" or something like that. Nergaal (talk) 23:22, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
- Support, high quality, and good topic scope. — Cirt (talk) 06:27, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- Closed with a consensus to promote to Good Topic - GamerPro64 16:42, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
"The List"- "The Incentive"
- "Lotto"
- "Garden Party"
- "Spooked"
- "Doomsday"
- "Pam's Replacement"
- "Gettysburg"
- Contributor(s): Gen. Quon, NoD'ohnuts
And here we have the eighth season of the American version of The Office. This just finished airing earlier this year and.. well.. it's been a mixed bag. Steve Carell is gone and Ed Helms is the new manager. It was largely a hit and miss season. I believe this topic meets the requirements as it is a listing of all the episodes that aired during the television series' eighth season, which limits it to a well-defined scope. The articles follow a solid formation and bear close structural resemblance to each other. In addition, the individual episode pages read as clearly related articles meant to be viewed in a series, but also stand on their own and present their information without expecting the reader to understand the topic as a whole. --Gen. Quon (Talk) 02:39, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
| Resolved comments from TBrandley (talk) 13:28, 17 September 2012 (UTC) |
|---|
Comments
TBrandley 03:01, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
|
- Support articles look good. Well done! TBrandley 13:28, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Comments
- Image captions that aren't complete sentences should not have a full stop, check all articles!
- I believe I've fixed these.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:53, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
- Make sure that episode lists meet WP:ACCESS if possible.
- Sorry to sound ignorant, but what exactly needs fixing?--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:50, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
- Do you really think you need to link common terms like "ghost"?!
- Got 'em, and some.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:54, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
- Does anyone here check for deadlinks before promoting a featured/good topic?
- Are there any?--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:50, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
The Rambling Man (talk) 20:27, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
- Why is the book report failing? Nergaal (talk) 23:25, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah, I don't know what's going on here. Any help?--Gen. Quon (Talk) 01:04, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
- Support, looks good. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:35, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- Suport book report seems fine. Nergaal (talk) 00:31, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
- Closed with a consensus to promote to Good Topic - GamerPro64 15:52, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
The Underground Electric Railways Company of London was the main forerunner of the London Underground. Established in 1902, the UERL was the holding company of six underground railway lines all originally established as separate companies. In 1933, the UERL was merged with other underground railways, tram and bus operators to form a London-wide transport organisation the London Passenger Transport Board.
The main article provides an overview of the holding company with separate articles for each of the lines. --DavidCane (talk) 23:29, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
- Support. Seems a well-defined topic with a good set of articles. Nice to see a good few FT noms this past while after a dearth. GRAPPLE X 23:38, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
- Comment. As co-nom and contributor to the good article District Railway I have opened a Peer Review as part of the process to getting this article to Featured Article status. I don't believe this will affect this process. Edgepedia (talk) 13:00, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- No, it won't affect anything here. As long as it stays Good or better then we're fine; only 50% of the articles need to be featured. GRAPPLE X 14:43, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- Support logical grouping and I cannot see what else would fall into the scope. Arsenikk (talk) 13:22, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
- Support One comment, in the City & South article, the "Preserved Stock" section heading should have the second word lc Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:36, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
- Fixed. Thanks.--DavidCane (talk) 12:45, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
- Shouldn't all references to London Gazette be to The London Gazette? Minor point, but if you could fix that, it'd be cool. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:12, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
- You're welcome to propose an amendment at Template talk:London Gazette, but failing that, no, sorry. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:14, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
- Aside from adding three letters and a space to every use of the template, I don't think it makes a great deal of difference - it certainly hasn't been commented on since I created the template in 2007.--DavidCane (talk) 22:03, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
- Okay, why let accuracy of publication titles get in the way! The Rambling Man (talk) 07:23, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
- Aside from adding three letters and a space to every use of the template, I don't think it makes a great deal of difference - it certainly hasn't been commented on since I created the template in 2007.--DavidCane (talk) 22:03, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
- You're welcome to propose an amendment at Template talk:London Gazette, but failing that, no, sorry. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:14, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
- Support Nergaal (talk) 23:18, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Closing as promoted. GRAPPLE X 00:20, 1 November 2012 (UTC)