Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/Failed log/March 2007

Teeth

Main page	Articles
Tooth	Dental caries - Tooth eruption - Dental anatomy - Tooth enamel - Tooth development

This is all the main subarticles of tooth, and they're all in pretty good shape I think. Tuf-Kat 01:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• Biased support I helped copyedit a few of those. As far as I know, User:Dozenist wrote nearly all of them; he might have suggestions for others to add as well. · j e r s y k o talk · 01:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Abstain for now per concerns raised. · j e r s y k o talk · 22:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support, but keep in mind that I am very much biased since I contributed heavily to tooth enamel, tooth development, dental caries, tooth eruption, and dental anatomy. Nonetheless, I think the articles contribute plenty of detailed information about the topic. At the moment, I cannot think of any other articles to add, but if any come to mind I will post my thoughts here. - Dozenist talk 01:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I do think dentistry would be a good addition, but it needs a rather lot of work and isn't necessary IMO to be a complete topic on the tooth itself. Tuf-Kat 03:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Yeah, agreed. This list of articles is plenty, I would think, but what do you think of Maxillary central incisor? I have no experience with any featured topics, so I am not sure how well the article would fit. - Dozenist talk 03:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I'm a bit confused here because a couple of the article are actually rated as unassessed. Those articles should probably go through peer review and GAC before considering this as an FT. Jay32183 04:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Tooth eruption could be axed, frankly, as it's basically a subset of tooth development (right Dozenist?) and is probably the weakest article of the bunch. The others are all GA or FA status except for dental anatomy, which could easily qualify as an A or GA with minimal a bit of work imo. · j e r s y k o talk · 14:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I think tooth eruption is the weakest of all the articles and could be developed more from its current state. - Dozenist talk 14:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - There are some obvious gaps in this topic (criterion #6) - what about Permanent teeth, Incisor, Canine tooth, Premolar, Molar (tooth) and Deciduous teeth? Also, the articles in the series should be linked together (criterion #4), which they are not. As a seperate issue, there are several articles unrated (Tooth, Tooth eruption and Dental anatomy). I suggest you nominate them for Good Article status. Tompw (talk) 22:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I think it can get away with not having the articles on each type of tooth; the ones included are the central articles about teeth that link off of the sub-headings of the main article. That being said, I agree that they all need to be linked together and rated before this can be promoted. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 02:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
    • There are still gaping holes in not having even all the direct subarticles of Tooth, e.g. Dental plaque, Dentin, Oral hygiene.Circeus 12:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose per Tompw's reasoning. LuciferMorgan 00:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose per Tompw. Witty lama 10:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Incomplete covering of topic, and articles that can should actually become GAs first. Circeus 12:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose per Tompw. PhoenixTwo 23:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
• Fail --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 01:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Scouting

Main page	Articles
Scouting	Baden-Powell House - Boy Scouts of America membership controversies - Eagle Scout (Boy Scouts of America) - Gilwell Park - Girl Scouts of the USA - History of merit badges (Boy Scouts of America) - List of Eagle Scouts (Boy Scouts of America) - The Scout Association of Hong Kong - Witold Pilecki

This is a good core of Scouting-related articles. All are FA/FLs, we also have 3 A-class and 5 GA articles.Rlevse 02:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• Support Would be a great addition to Featured Topics.--Joebengo 03:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Strong object. What were the criteria for selecting those articles? For example, Witold Pilecki may be my personal hero, but being a scout was not the most important part of his life. Linking Polish outstanding Scout Instructors and Związek Harcerstwa Polskiego would be more appopriate. The above list is also very US/Western Centered: 4 US organizations, 1 US list, 2 British places, 1 Chinese organization and a Polish person? What kind of a list is this?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  04:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose due to arbitrary choice of member articles. The first line of the lead article says that it is a worldwide organization, yet 5/10 of the articles are specific to America and one is specific to Hong Kong with all other countries unrepresented. Maybe you should nominate Boy Scouts of America as its own topic; that would have a much clearer scope. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 04:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment choice was not arbitary, I simply picked all our FAs. The reason most of them are US-related is that most project members are from the US, so natually those topics tend to get worked on more.Rlevse 10:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Articles picked to form a topic shouldn't be picked because they are all high quality articles that can become a featured topic. You should pick the articles that fit together properly, and then go about improving those articles. Christopher Connor 13:26, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - Just choosing the FA articles breaks requirement #5: no obvious gap. There are main subsections of the main article that are missing from the topic, such as Scout method and Scouting in popular culture. Also, if the The Scout Association of Hong Kong is in the topic, than the Scout Association of every country would have to be. There are a gigantic number of articles that could potentially be under this topic and are conspicuously absent now. I see two ways that you could get scouting nominated:
    1. Nominate a topic with just the high-importance articles that would link off of the main page, such as History of Scouting and Scout method. Or,
    2. Nominate several smaller subtopics, such as "Scouting in America" or "National Scouting Associations". --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 14:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose for cherrypicking, you have to nominate a whole branch of a tree, not just the leaves you like. Someone needs to find a good topic to nominate now, once the hurricane one goes this'll be a page full of opposes, quite depressing. --PresN 18:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose I'm going to have to oppose, the topic choices are just too broad in subject. Darthgriz⁹⁸ 05:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
• OpposeThis is just a list of our GAs and FAs, not a coherent topic... Horus Kol Talk 13:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
• Fail --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 20:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Solar System (2nd supplementary nomination)

This topic is already featured. It is being re-nominated to add additional items. See Wikipedia talk:Featured topics/Solar System for discussions of the topic's previous nominations. The additional items are:

1. Asteroid belt
2. Kuiper belt
3. Scattered disc
4. Oort cloud

Main page	Articles
Solar System	Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Asteroid belt, Ceres, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, Kuiper belt, Pluto, Eris, Scattered disc, Oort cloud

• These four items are major features of the solar system that belong in the top-level topic. None of them are featured, but they are all a few sections long and have references. They are already linked to the rest of the topic via {{Solar System}}. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 02:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. Only one is a GA, and it wouldn't have much purpose just to approve the one. Hurricanehink (talk) 02:18, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose These articles aren't vital to the topic, although definitely appropriate. Therefore I feel that there is no reason they shouldn't all be GA's. Jay32183 04:33, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose, yes these do need to be GA's - at least the majoirty of them should be GA's before they are renominated. At which time I will support. Witty lama 04:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Fail --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 23:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Doctor Who

1. Doctor Who

Main page	Articles
Doctor Who	The Doctor - Daleks - Cybermen - TARDIS - Regeneration - UNIT - History of Doctor Who- theme music

The ones I've listed here are only the best Doctor Who articles, there are others which are quite poor. But these are the main ones. 3 FA and I think could be GA I've anyone wants to nominate them. Buc 18:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Note: the Doctor Who WikiProject has just begun the process of tidying up these articles, after a long featured article review for Dalek. I'm not sure whether we're quite ready to be a featured topic yet, although if others think we are I won't argue. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

• I'm gonna have to say that the exclusion of the list of episodes and serials is a pretty notable gap. That should probably be a featured list before this becomes a featured topic. Jay32183 20:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose for the aforementioned gap. Also, United Nations Intelligence Taskforce, Doctor Who theme music, and Cyberman are not GA's, and none of the A class articles have passed a GA nomination either. Hurricanehink (talk) 22:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose You can't just nominate the best articles from a topic. Tompw (talk) 20:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose per above concerns. It'd be best to concentrate on cleaning up the old Dr. Who FAs first. LuciferMorgan 12:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - Many gaps. You may want to try getting a sub-topic nominated, such as all of the articles about each of the ten Doctors, or the organizations in Doctor Who. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 01:56, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Fail - --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 05:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)