Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/Featured log/May 2011

Good topic candidates:

edit | discuss

Atlantic Coast Conference football championship games

8 articles

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

List of champions

Contributor(s): JKBrooks85

This is a renomination of a delisted topic that has been updated to meet the criteria. Two non-GA, non-FA articles have been filled out to GA status, and the article is complete until December. Let me know what you all think. --JKBrooks85 (talk) 06:46, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support appears complete, although I am worried it will be abandoned the same way it was in the past.
  Nergaal (talk) 18:57, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:07, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Awesome work. ceranthor 01:44, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Zginder 2011-04-21T19:15Z (UTC)
• Support – Fine work on this series. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:06, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Close with consensus to promote. - GamerPro64 01:08, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kepler-11

edit | discuss

Kepler-11

7 articles

Kepler-11b

Kepler-11c

Kepler-11d

Kepler-11e

Kepler-11f

Kepler-11g

Contributor(s): Starstriker7 (self-nom)

Looks like it meets all criteria and recommendations on

• Support Zginder 2011-04-24T18:39Z (UTC)
• Comment - There needs to be a book created for this.
  GamerPro64 (talk) 23:50, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support
  Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:11, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support I created a book.
  Adabow (talk · contribs) 06:41, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment - There is a {{Citation needed}} in Kepler-11b. GamerPro64 02:15, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It has been resolved. --Starstriker7^(Talk) 03:43, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. All looks good. Ucucha 10:00, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Closed with consensus to promote as GT. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:24, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spooks (series 7)

edit | discuss

Spooks (series 7)

6 articles

"New Allegiances"

"Split Loyalties"

"The Tip-Off"

"On the Brink"

"Nuclear Strike"

I am nominating this for a Good Topic because I believe it is worthy for inclusion. I have worked on it for about a month or so and the GANs went by quickly thanks to the backlog elimination drive. -- Matthew RD 16:09, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Why are these five episodes more notable than the other three?
  Nergaal (talk) 19:28, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Because I can't find anything notable (GA worthy) for the other three, so I find it pointless to create articles on them. I thought that just because only a handful of articles exist, like

  Supernatural (season 1), it shouldn't fail. -- Matthew RD 19:56, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  It is just a bit weird that 5 of the 8 are notable and not the others. Most of the other examples have 2 or 3 episodes out of something like 10. Over half being notable is a bit towards all of them being notable.

  Nergaal (talk) 01:17, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Support: Having reviewed several of the above episodes, I don't see a problem with having an incomplete season as a featured topic (so long as the remaining episodes remain redirects). However, it would be nice for those 3 remaining episodes to be expanded into good articles eventually. As the above articles are well-written and interesting to read (considering I've never watched the show), I'll give it my support. Ruby2010 talk 04:37, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I am not convinced that a season can have 5 notable episodes, and 3 non-notable ones.
  Nergaal (talk) 18:57, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• How can I convince you? Should I add production and reception sections on the three missing episodes on the series talk page to show you how little there is? I said before, the other are not notable because there I could find barely anything on the other three, mabe the odd reviews, but not nearly enough production. For example, for "A Chance for Peace", the only production I could find is the writing anf directing credits, and mention the return of a character from the third series. It's also the only episode in the series not to have a review from TV Scoop(No review marked "TV Review: Spooks, BBC One, Monday 10 November, 9pm"), so reception section is also very limited. That's it. Is that enough to warrant a good article? No. I'm sorry you feel that way, but I say again, there are episodes that are non-notable. -- Matthew RD 13:12, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I am convinced. Zginder 2011-04-23T21:40Z (UTC)
• There's only two supports and one oppose. I really would like there to be more comments made before I made a decision. GamerPro64 00:30, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Then perhaps would you post a comment? -- Matthew RD 06:33, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support precedent is clearly set at
  Supernatural (season 2) that not every episode must have an article. Also, 1d appears to me to mean not that the articles don't exist but that the topic would not cover those, if for example there were a stub episode article that would be ignored for this FTC, which is not the case here. (Note: I was contacted by the nominator for my input). _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 10:50, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Closed with consensus to promote as good topic. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:03, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kepler-9

edit | discuss

Kepler-9

4 articles

Kepler-9d

Kepler-9b

Kepler-9c

Contributor(s): Starstriker7 (self-nom)

These appear to fulfill all criteria at

• Support the first space topic in a veeeery long time.
  Nergaal (talk) 22:09, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support Don't see any gaps. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:59, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Makes sense.
  Adabow (talk · contribs) 19:10, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment - I don't understand why K-9d is in front of the other two Keplers.
  GamerPro64 (talk) 21:05, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Kepler-9d is the closest of the planets to Kepler-9. It's listed as 'd' because it was discovered only after 9b and 9c were. Nstock (talk) 19:48, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense. Support

GamerPro64 (talk) 22:02, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

• Support Nstock (talk) 19:48, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support! It's so cool seeing a topic outside of our solar system. Would this be the first? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:24, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They are listed just below yours at

Nergaal (talk) 23:29, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Oops :P --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:52, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support igordebraga ≠ 02:07, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I just noticed that
  GamerPro64 (talk) 23:07, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • No! The Kepler mission has reported over a dozen confirmed planets so far and it has over 1200 candidates awaiting confirmation. In theory at least, this topic would be a sub-sub-topic on the mission one.
    Nergaal (talk) 01:24, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Nah it doesn't need to be part of the topic. It's an appendix to the book mostly. Although the
      books} 17:58, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
      ]
• Support The topic is not the Kepler mission, it is a particular star system, and therefore complete. Courcelles 08:24, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Question: What are the chances that an additional planet will be discovered in the system? JKBrooks85 (talk) 07:39, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further discoveries in an already-reported system are not too common.
    Nergaal (talk) 01:32, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Support Zginder 2011-04-24T18:49Z (UTC)
• Question Why is
  Adabow (talk · contribs) 23:27, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • My apologies for the delay. Kepler-9 is a single system that has been observed by the Kepler satellite; as the topic is about the Kepler-9 system and not the satellite, the topic is complete. It is in the book because, as Headbomb said, it serves as more of an appendix. --Starstriker7^(Talk) 03:27, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Closed with consensus to promote. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 03:30, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Metroid titles

edit | discuss

Metroid titles

13 articles

Metroid

Metroid II: Return of Samus

Super Metroid

Metroid Fusion

Metroid: Zero Mission

Metroid: Other M

Metroid Prime

Metroid Prime 2: Echoes

Metroid Prime Pinball

Metroid Prime Hunters

Metroid Prime 3: Corruption

Metroid Prime: Trilogy

Contributor(s):

Gary King, Judgesurreal777, KieferSkunk[reply

]

As is, there are not enough articles of featured quality for this to pass as featured. Definitely Support good topic, however. There are nine good articles and four featured articles, putting the number of featured articles as 1/3 of the total number of articles, below the threshold of 1/2. We would need to promote three articles to featured quality to adhere to the FA topic criteria. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 00:23, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I think some sort of division between the main series and the Prime series should be made. I've given it a shot. Feel free to revert/tweak/whatever.

books} 02:55, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

• Support, obviously
  books} 03:06, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Support for Good or Featured? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 03:23, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • For GT... ? Doesn't the 50% FA-threshold preclude this being a FT?
      books} 04:17, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • I just wanted to make sure. Not to say that you were uninformed of the criteria, I just wanted clarification for clarification's sake. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 05:57, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, all articles GA+ and no gaps. It's in the GTnom section, so obviously it's for GT. --PresN 06:48, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's the fault of the naming of the nomination process; I came to it through a link, and the link read "Featured topic candidates". - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 06:59, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Don't worry, all GTC's are formated as FTC. It is just a technical issue since there is not GT => FT promotion process formally, all GTCs are FTCs but are promoted as GTs.
      Nergaal (talk) 21:54, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
      ]
• Appears complete, but what about
  Nergaal (talk) 01:08, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  It's not a title, though. Eventually I hope we can create one single Metroid topic containing every article related to it, though. There are less than half a dozen articles left, I think.

  scripts) 01:28, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Yes, putting the series article would require the characters articles - and while

  Characters in the Metroid series are far from Good status. igordebraga ≠ 10:08, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Though I can't imagine that Ridley would be difficult to make near GA quality; merely needs copyediting and probably some better sourcing. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 21:53, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support
  Nergaal (talk) 18:56, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support Complete topic.
  Adabow (talk · contribs) 03:07, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support Zginder 2011-04-25T20:21Z (UTC)
• There does not seem to be any opposition to the passing of this topic as a good topic. Is there such a thing as a snowball pass? :P - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 23:38, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Close with consensus to promote. - GamerPro64 00:36, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]