Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/1952 Winter Olympics/archive1

1952 Winter Olympics

Featured topic

4 articles

1952 Winter Olympics medal table

List of 1952 Winter Olympics medal winners

Venues of the 1952 Winter Olympics

Contributor(s): Strange Passerby; Arsenikk; H1nkles; Courcelles

Here is a featured topic candidate for the 1952 Winter Olympics. It includes the primary article and lists that encompass all of the medal winners, all of the countries that won medals and venues of the Games. All the content is featured. H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 16:34, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~I'm sorry this is my first FT nomination and the title isn't formatted right but I don't know how to fix it. Could someone help out? Thanks.~~ H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 16:46, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I feel this would need the breakdown of the events (see book) to feel complete. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:19, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This was discussed amongst the contributors and I'll try to summarize our thoughts; we felt the articles/lists provide a good overview of the topic while acknowledging that there are a couple of subtopics (events and nations at 1952 Winter Olympics). The article summarizes the events and the participating nations while the medalist lists give the medal winners in each event. I see merits in your suggestion but we were thinking this would make a good subtopic as would the articles on the nations participating at the 1952 Winter Games. Thoughts? H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 20:00, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The logic was the the nations would work as a sub-topic with the medal table as its lead, and the events as another with the list of medal winners as the lead to that. Courcelles 23:42, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, 1952 Winter Olympics ref #53 (USA Today) seems to have a problem. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 06:02, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yep you're right good catch, I've replaced it with a ref from the National Library of Medicine. Thanks! H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 16:13, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BTW if you didn't know, everytime you create a book, Noombot will create a bpok report like Book talk:1952 Winter Olympics#Book report, which contains an overview of the assessment ratings, cleanup tasks, and use of non-free media for the article, as well as several useful links such as an external link inspector (it's how I found the dead link) and disambiguation resolver. Useful even if you're not at FTC. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:07, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good to know, I'm totally new at FTC and creating books. The bot is very useful especially at looking quickly through multiple articles. Thanks! H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 18:51, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support For an overview, it's OK (maybe the sports can be added later - and if feeling really disposed, the nations?) igordebraga ≠ 01:25, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've just browse a bunch of articles related to this, and if events and nations should be excluded for some reason, I don't see any reason to exclude Bids for the 1952 Winter Olympics, which is a stub. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:24, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I'm concerned, Bids for the 1952 Winter Olympics should not exist at all as it is. The bids are well covered in the main article, and per WP:AVOIDSPLIT the small three sentence stub should not exist, the coverage in 1952 Winter Olympics section is much better. Merge the table of votes in and redirect would be my answer. Courcelles 11:21, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, I'll add the results table and then all the information in the Bids article will be in the main article. In my research for the article I wasn't able to find much more than what is in the main article. Bidding for the Games did not become controversial until the Games became big business back in the '80s. Until then the process had a low profile and consequently not much coverage. H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 16:05, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Any further comments/support? Would like to close this soon if I could. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:14, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, the situation with Bids for the 1952 Winter Olympics should be resolved first. If it should not exist, merge it and be done with it. If it should exist, then the topic cannot pass, since the bids articles is not at GA-level. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 06:48, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The section in the main article already contained all, and far more, info than that stub. I'd assumed Hinkles had redirected it to the main Games article before, but seems he had not. Done now. Courcelles 16:18, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support w/o bids article, seems to be set now. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 23:33, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Closed with consensus to promote as featured topic. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 02:50, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]