Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/Good log/September 2014

Actinides

16 articles

Actinium

Thorium

Protactinium

Uranium

Neptunium

Plutonium

Americium

Curium

Berkelium

Californium

Einsteinium

Fermium

Mendelevium

Nobelium

Lawrencium

Contributor(s): WP Elements

Not enough chemistry topics! (Partial self nom, as I worked on some, but not all, of these articles.) --Double sharp (talk) 14:34, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate comment - looks good so far. A book needs to be made for it. GamerPro64 17:36, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Book:Actinides? (That one has three more articles, mostly about environmental effects and nuclear fuel. Here I thought the easiest possible scope definition was "elements which are actinides", because the environmental effects of radioactivity and presence in nuclear fuel are not confined to just the actinides, but also to polonium through radium and fission products.) Double sharp (talk) 04:57, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yeah that works. GamerPro64 14:32, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support I just came here to nominate transuranium element, though actinides is a better grouping for this. interesting timing, great minds think alike. I have noticed all the work to bring many to GA, and then saw at least one was FA. I don't know any reason not to create this as a featured topic, which is also a new feature here to me as of right now.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 15:08, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The transuraniums are a little further off, they'll need another five GAs to be a GT (main, Db, Sg, Bh, Lv). But we're working on it! :-) With period 7 and Ra additionally we'll have a period 7 GT as well. Double sharp (talk) 15:49, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional support if the problems raised by the Book Report are fixed. Otherwise, impressive effort. igordebraga ≠ 02:14, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed actinide, protactinium, and neptunium: uranium and plutonium will take a little longer to fix, but I'll do it after a little quick research. Double sharp (talk) 12:45, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - OK, all of them are fixed. (I unfortunately had to remove the statement re mutations in human Pu experiments on Pu – I didn't find this in the main article. It may very well be true but I'd rather be sure about it for an FA.) Double sharp (talk) 07:19, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Question I don't quite understand why those three topics are in the book but not this GTC. Are they not within the umbrella of Actinides? Alternatively, what are the chances that they can be merged, since they're pretty sparse right now and can always grow summary style? Now would seem to be the appropriate time to address them, though. Otherwise everything else appears to be in order czar ♔ 23:42, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the merging should work: environmental radioactivity ought IMHO to cover Ra, Rn, and Po as well as the actinides, and major/minor actinides are just definitions honestly. I'll do it soon. Double sharp (talk) 00:44, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hmm, per Nergaal's comment below, perhaps this isn't necessary. Yes, they are about actinides, but they aren't actinides, so if the scope definition is just "elements which are actinides" none of these three articles would qualify. Double sharp (talk) 07:28, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support there are a few ways to have a topic like this. The current way is more of a "list of actinides" but in the future the topic could be expanded to fit the "overview of actinides" role. Nergaal (talk) 08:10, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Closed with a consensus to promote to Good Topic. - GamerPro64 21:07, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fez (video game)

Fez

3 articles

Development of Fez

Phil Fish

GTC nomination—This proposed topic covers the video game Fez and its constituent subtopics: its development and its creator. There are no other subdivisions of the game with significant coverage for their own articles. All constituent articles are at GA class. Do I need the parenthetical disambiguation on this topic title? Thank you for your time czar ♔ 17:39, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support; covers all pertinent topics since Polytron doesn't have its own article. Tezero (talk) 19:42, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support - complete. (I reviewed Fez itself for GAN). --Pres N 15:29, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I see no errors in coverage. Even if Polytron had its own article, including a developer in a video game topic is unnecessary 99% of the time. However, the inclusion of Phil Fish is clearly warranted, given the vast body of third-party coverage that associates him with Fez. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 07:07, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Closed with a consensus to promote to Good Topic. - GamerPro64 19:12, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Wohlwend

7 articles

Puzzlejuice

Hundreds

Ridiculous Fishing

Threes!

Mikengreg

Solipskier

Gasketball

This is the complete topic of Wohlwend's independently notable works (as either an artist or a developer). Any topics without significant coverage were worked into the parent article. I also considered working Mikengreg (the partnership behind his first two games) into the topic, but I didn't feel that it was appropriate. Let me know if you feel otherwise. Otherwise, all of these articles are GA and I believe the topic meets the criteria. Thanks for your time czar ♔ 00:05, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Conditional~~ support; I would say Mikengreg is absolutely appropriate; this isn't a "Greg Wohlwend games" topic. Mike Boxleiter doesn't have an article, so why not? I'll support if Mikengreg is added. Tezero (talk) 00:28, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Tezero, where would it go? In a level between GW and their two games? czar ♔ 00:32, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That works. Tezero (talk) 00:38, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Tezero, added czar ♔ 08:55, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there we have it. Tezero (talk) 14:56, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Looking over these articles, they look very good. BTW, I think the Ridiculous Fishing series of images might have a chance at FPC. What do you think about using JPGs so that they render sharper in the article? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:05, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Responded at Talk:Ridiculous Fishing#JPG images czar ♔ 08:55, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support - looks good, and I also agree with having mikengreg in there. --Pres N 15:30, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Supp made order less confusing. Nergaal (talk) 08:58, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Closed with a consensus to promote to Good Topic. --十八 20:46, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Supplementary nominations

Action Button Entertainment

4 articles

Ziggurat

Videoball

Tim Rogers (journalist)

Good topic candidate nomination for the indie video game company Action Button Entertainment. All of its major constituent articles are GA class. I originally intended for Videoball to also be at GA but was informed that unreleased games cannot be GAs due to the stability criteria and how much articles change after release, yadda yadda (see the WT:GA talk page for more). This said, I did have the article peer reviewed in accordance with procedure, and will be able to bring it to GA as needed once the game is released. There are no other subtopics beneath Action Button Entertainment unrepresented in this proposed good topic's scope. Thanks for your time czar ♔ 17:18, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support; nothing much to say, really. Tezero (talk) 19:48, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Currently a neat topic, but precarious- you'll have to get the Videoball article to GA status when the game's released, and if any of the other of the studio's team members/games become notable then those articles will also have to be brought up to GA status. I'm sure this won't be too much of a problem for you, though. J Milburn (talk) 09:53, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - given your furious rate of output of GAs these past 6 months, I'm not very worried about Videoball not getting submitted to GAN within 3 months of release. Wouldn't really be worried if the time limit was 3 weeks, either. --Pres N 15:29, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Closed with a consensus to promote to Good Topic. - GamerPro64 00:50, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wildebeest

3 articles

Black wildebeest

Blue wildebeest

Wildebeest are antelopes in the genus Connochaetes and are native to central and southern Africa. There are just two species in the genus, and the articles covering each of these, and the parent article have all become "Good articles" in the last few months. This is a joint nomination by Sainsf and myself. We worked independently so you may find some variations in style between the articles. All comments are welcome. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:13, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In principle this topic looks fine but would you mind fixing the talkpage of the blue one so it shows the GA correctly? Also, in the future, consider using the form at Wikipedia:Featured_topic_candidates/Header#Nomination_procedure. Nergaal (talk) 13:56, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did start using that form but them met a fancy template that seemed too difficult. I have also removed a template from the talk page of Blue wildebeest, but I am not sure whether that was what you meant. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:48, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've reformatted this nomination- hope you don't mind, Cwmhiraeth. Taking a look at the articles now. J Milburn (talk) 15:42, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:48, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Nicely defined topic, all solid GAs. Seems to meet the criteria. J Milburn (talk) 16:11, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Neat little topic. Confirmed that there are no missing subtopics. An image could be added to the book cover, and you might want to add a navbox per 1c. czar ♔ 19:24, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pres N 15:32, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Closed with a consensus to promote to Good Topic. --十八 22:35, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]