Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/Good log/July 2017

Saxobeats

Saxobeats

5 articles

"1.000.000"

Contributor(s): Cartoon network freak

This is the last Good topic from Alexandra Stan's discography to be passed, and then we'll have GTs to all her albums. All pages here are GA status, so I think this should be promoted. --Cartoon network freak (talk) 12:03, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – shouldn't Show Me the Way (Peter Frampton song) be included in this? Carbrera (talk) 01:33, 2 July 2017 (UTC).[reply]

@Carbrera: I don't know who added this, but this info is wrong. "Show Me the Way" is not a cover of Peter Frampton's song, so it thus has no place here. Best, Cartoon network freak (talk) 09:14, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If that is true, then the article on the album needs to revised to reflect this. Aoba47 (talk) 13:57, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: I have already revised the album article some time ago. Cartoon network freak (talk) 15:43, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

According to the edit summary for the article, you literally just revised it today following Carbrera's comment so the "some time ago" part is simply not true. I have removed the link in the track listing. Otherwise, everything looks good so I will support this. Aoba47 (talk)

@Aoba47: There was actually more info about the alleged cover, including an image of Peter Frampton. However, when I looked over the article today, I realized that there still was some content that I did not see. Thank you for your support, Cartoon network freak (talk) 16:20, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are precedents to either turn this into an Alexandra Stan topic, as everything on her (...except the lawsuit, but if the topic is solely about the music, that's not necessary) is either a good article or a featured list - including GTs on her other albums. Or just boost Wikipedia:Featured topics/Alexandra Stan studio albums into "Alexandra Stan discography", given even her songs as a featured artist are good. But it's your choice. igordebraga ≠ 03:25, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Igordebraga: I would first promote this topic and thenone about her whole discography (yes, also featured artist songs are good). Cartoon network freak (talk) 04:02, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, let's just give a Support to help it, then. igordebraga ≠ 06:10, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support, everything is there. Kees08 (Talk) 07:48, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Everything seems fine. Good job! Regards, Paparazzzi (talk) 22:36, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Closed with a consensus to promote to Good Topic. - GamerPro64 22:44, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ships of the Royal Yugoslav Navy

This good topic candidate ~~contains a lead article, Royal Yugoslav Navy,~~ is led by List of ships of the Royal Yugoslav Navy, and articles covering all the ship classes, and where they are individually notable, articles for all individual ships on the list. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:12, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Congrats on getting here Peacemaker. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 04:31, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Issues: why is Category:Ships of the Royal Yugoslav Navy full of other articles? If T1-8 exist, why not T9-12? Or any MT class ones? Also, I am wondering if any people in Category:Royal Yugoslav Navy personnel of World War II, at least the admiral(s) should be included? If yes, change lead with the ships list. Nergaal (talk) 08:48, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What other articles? The reason for T9–12 not being included is that they are not independently notable, as I mentioned in a general sense in the nom statement. The 250t-class ones clearly are, which can be seen from the individual articles. That is clear if you look at the 250t-class and Kaiman-class articles, and is a function of how old they were when WWI commenced, the 250t-class were new and were very active, the Kaiman-class not so much. The MT-class is the same, they are PT-boats that served for less than a year in a war, given their size, very little has been written about any individual PT-boats (except the one JFK captained in the Pacific). It is also highly questionable whether any of the senior officers of the Royal Yugoslav Navy are themselves notable. Of course, I'd be interested in any sources you might have that call into question my statements about the notability of individual ships. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:04, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don't understand me wrong. The topic you proposed is fine with ships as lead and removal of current lead. The overview topic (which you propose here) should contain also a list of admirals for example, Dragutin Prica, and even maybe a fork of Orders, decorations, and medals of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia. Nergaal (talk) 09:58, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think I understand what you are saying, remove Royal Yugoslav Navy from this topic and call it List of ships of the Royal Yugoslav Navy? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:15, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Until other articles relevant to the topic (but which are not ships) are also improved. Nergaal (talk) 09:59, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

About 1/3 of the articles are linked to different names than listed here. I am not sure what is the best procedure for this. Maybe put together a good introduction that details all this and others in short. Same for the book, which is a joke right now. Nergaal (talk) 10:07, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nergaal Will fix that. This is the first time I've done a proper good-sized book. Do you have any suggestions on a possible structure? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:13, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Have worked on the book, dividing it up into chapters by ship type similar to other FT/GT on ships. Let me know what you think? Have also fixed the naming issue by piping to the Yugoslav names. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:30, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Now it is readable. I almost suggest leaving out names with boat types so this list is more readable. Also, you need a descriptive intro paragraph. Nergaal (talk) 08:36, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Trimmed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:58, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Added intro para. Let me know what you think? More? Less? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:10, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I wrote a couple of the articles in this topic, so I'm probably too involved to vote, but I do have a question: why are the monitors written out with their full titles, but none of the other vessels are? Also, the columns should probably be as even as possible - I'd suggest swapping Beli Orao and the three minelayers/sweepers, which would give you columns of 12, 12, and 11, which balances much nicer. Parsecboy (talk) 00:57, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:54, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I notice in the list of ships you state that auxiliaries are not listed there. Is that list somewhere else? If not, can it not be created? Presumably, they were ships of the Royal Yugoslav Navy too, even if they weren't fighting ones. –Noswall59 (talk) 01:52, 8 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]

G'day, the reason the larger auxiliaries are not part of the topic is because they do not meet the general notability guideline, and therefore do not have an article, whereas the ships and classes of ships in this topic are, and do. They are, as you point out, covered by their inclusion in the list. The smaller auxiliaries, tugs and hulks are also non-notable. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:37, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Director Comment - Only one Support has been made for this topic. This nomination needs more discussion for a consensus to be made. GamerPro64 17:01, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've listed it on the Wikicup list of articles/topics needing attention, in the hope that will attract more attention. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:44, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've also posted on the Wikiproject Military History talk page. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:37, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Why is patrol torpedo boat not included? Otherwise, I will just have to trust you on certain ships not being notable, as I do not have access to resources that would verify their notability. Kees08 (Talk) 19:28, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

G'day. I think that is stretching the scope of a good topic outside what constitutes "thoroughly covering all parts of that topic" when the topic is about Royal Yugoslav Navy ships. The Yugoslav PT boats were drawn from one of several models of PT boats, there isn't even significant coverage in reliable sources of the Yugoslav "MT class" of eight boats, let alone the individual boats, and the lead list of this topic already covers all of the available and admittedly basic information about the class. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:51, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- My only concern would be that 250t-class torpedo boat (and other similar overarching boat groups) are included, but patrol torpedo boat is not. It seems like the summary groups may not be needed for this, and just the specific ships should be included. I am not going to make a fuss about it though, you should have enough supports now as it is anyways. Kees08 (Talk) 00:18, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - As a result of doing some deeper research into the PT boats pursuant to this query, with the idea of writing an article on the class, it appears that the source may not be correct about the PT boats. Several other sources state that the PT boats in question were transferred to the British under Lend-Lease in October 1944 and remained with them until the end of the war as Motor Gun Boats, and that they were handed back at the end of the war. There is even discussion of one of them supporting SOE insertions on the Italian coast, which the British would have kept control of. It appears they may have then been transferred to the Yugoslavs post-war, which would mean that they did not serve in the Royal Yugoslav Navy, and wouldn't be part of this topic. I've noted this on the lead list talk page, and removed them from it for now. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:53, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks for doing that additional research, makes sense. Changing to support. Kees08 (Talk) 05:13, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The Schichau class link should not be italicized, no ship named Schichau. Other than that Support - Llammakey (talk) 11:11, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Good pick up. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:40, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support To get this far on so many articles--Amazing--. auntieruth (talk) 18:54, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

G'day GamerPro64, I think all issues have been addressed now and it has sufficient support. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:22, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support This looks incredible. Congratulations, it must have been a colossal amount of work. N Oneemuss (talk) 17:01, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closed with a consensus to promote to Good Topic. - GamerPro64 03:56, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Golden Sun series

Golden Sun series

4 articles

Golden Sun

The Lost Age

Dark Dawn

Contributor(s): haha169

This has been a series of articles that I have been working on, on and off for probably almost a decade now. The first Golden Sun game passed FA long ago before I came onto the scene, but since then I have been working to bring the other three up to GA. This year I had a stroke of inspiration and worked for the past few months to improve the last two articles, Dark Dawn and the series page, and they have both just passed the GAN nomination. So I'm bringing them up here. --haha169 (talk) 13:16, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support, Nice work! --A Sword in the Wind (talk | changes) 14:00, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support, though as there are no character or other articles that you're excluding, you can probably get rid of the qualifier and just call this "Golden Sun" or "Golden Sun series". --Pres N 14:51, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Huh, this whole time I thought there was a list of characters, but appears it was redirected in this edit two days ago. That list was in terrible shape anyways, and I'll change the title of the topic as you suggested. --haha169 (talk) 15:11, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jclemens (talk) 18:02, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Suport this even reminds me I have to play Dark Dawn some day. igordebraga ≠ 02:41, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support, very nice.--IDV^talk 08:15, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Closed with a consensus to promote to Good Topic.--十八 05:34, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Rainfall

4 articles

Xenoblade Chronicles

The Last Story

Pandora's Tower

Contributor(s): ProtoDrake

All four articles are at GA level and connected by a single subject which has received recognition and commentary from independent sources. --ProtoDrake (talk) 09:46, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support igordebraga ≠ 15:01, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support, nice job.--IDV^talk 15:31, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pres N 01:17, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jclemens (talk) 03:53, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:59, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Closed with a consensus to promote to Good Topic.--十八 05:23, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

James Bond films

Contributor(s): igordebraga, SchroCat, Dr. Blofeld, Betty Logan

This is more for bureaucracy than anything else. This topic was promoted back in 2012, successfully survived the retention period of Skyfall, but was not so lucky with Spectre, leading to a demotion last year. So I've been ever since working to get a Good Article out of the 24th Bond film (saving the topic's lead article from FL demotion along the way), and it passed this month. So, can 007 finally get back his licence to kill (or at least, to brandish the Good topic symbol)? igordebraga ≠ 06:18, 15 May 2017 (UTC) --igordebraga ≠ 06:18, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Good to see it back here. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:05, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's safe to say that this topic is once again complete, until the next film is coming out. Nickag989^talk 19:39, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pres N 01:17, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jclemens (talk) 03:44, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:59, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Wonderful work with this. Aoba47 (talk) 17:13, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closed with a consensus to promote to Good Topic.--十八 05:03, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]