Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/Good log/September 2008

The Simpsons (season 1)

Every episode article from this season is of GA status and The Simpsons (season 1) is a FL. It fulfills all criteria for a Good Topic. TheLeftorium 19:26, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Co-nominators: Scorpion, Gran2, Brendan Moody, LAAFan and Maitch

• Support Looks good to me Gary King (talk) 19:34, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support Works for me :) --Admrb♉ltz (talk) 19:46, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support I hope that even if the others at FT/GT continue to make it nearly impossible to make FT's you guys will continue to make GT's. Zginder 2008-09-16T22:28Z (UTC)
• Support - good work - rst20xx (talk) 22:36, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support This will complement the existing simpson GAs. --Pie is good ^{(Apple is the best)} 21:51, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support - time to go for the next GT! Nergaal (talk) 21:56, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support Nice work. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 15:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support nice work over at the Wikiproject! Don't stop trying to get an FT, guys. -- _{Escape Artist Swyer} ^Talk _{Contributions} 16:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support - Very well done indeed. ~~ ĈĠ ☺ ^Simple? 22:28, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
• Redundant and reluctant support I dunno why, but after seeing the snowball supports, I want to object for some reason. But I can't.  Mm40 (talk | contribs)  20:56, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Nice work everyone. Cirt (talk) 01:53, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
• Close with consensus to promote - rst20xx (talk) 20:55, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Adriatic campaign of 1807–1814

Main page	Articles
Adriatic campaign of 1807–1814	Battle of Lissa (1811) - Action of 29 November 1811 - Action of 22 February 1812

An interesting if little known campaign of the Napoleonic Wars, this topic covers the overall campaign and all major actions. It has one FA and three GAs and thus seems to fulfill all criteria for a Good Topic.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:14, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support Zginder 2008-09-13T23:54Z (UTC)
• Support - a fine piece of work. One more FA and you have an FT, too :P As a comment, potential expansions would be to include the personnel or ships involved in the campaign - rst20xx (talk) 10:01, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
• 'Support – all checks out by my eyes. Good stuff. -- Sabre (talk) 23:06, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
• Close with consensus to promote - rst20xx (talk) 00:47, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Supplementary nominations

1. Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Adriatic campaign of 1807–1814/addition1

StarCraft titles

Alrightly, StarCraft series just passed its GAN, so now seems like a good time to go for this new-fangled good topic thingy. StarCraft II, as it is unreleased and hence unstable, cannot currently pass GA, but it has been peer reviewed here. We've got this image available for the topic box's picture. -- Sabre (talk) 19:57, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Co-nom Also this should be StarCraft titles per the previous video game topics. Gary King (talk) 20:05, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support - Great to see another video game topic here! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:07, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - I think more information from Insurrection and Retribution could be added, such as information from the first paragraph of the Overview in Insurrection - rst20xx (talk) 22:21, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

  There's not really anything further to add on Retribution and Insurrection that is compliant with reliable, secondary sources. What's in the StarCraft series article is all I could save. Believe me, I'd ideally like to have independent articles for them, but WP:V and WP:N prevent that as the sources just aren't available. Besides, the jist of the information in the overview paragraph of Insurrection is already there. In fact, looking through it, the only bit of information in the old articles that could be used is the fact that the two add-ons had full voice acting. -- Sabre (talk) 22:48, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

  "Insurrection includes three new campaigns, comprising around 30 missions and over 100 new multiplayer maps. It was made using the standard Campaign Editor included with StarCraft and as such is unable to add new music, tilesets, cinematics or units like the complete expansion pack StarCraft: Brood War. However, it does include new heroes, factions and trigger sounds for briefings and key events within the campaigns." All of this sounds like important information to me, but none of it is in the StarCraft (series) article - rst20xx (talk) 13:26, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

  Again, all of which is covered in respect to the coverage's notability in the main article. Half of that was original research: I should know, I probably wrote it a few years back. I'm sorry, I really don't see the need to double the length of the paragraph to add some statistics that are already summarised and don't have the sources available to verify it. -- Sabre (talk) 23:05, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

  Oppose Sorry, I don't agree. I'm amazed that you claim you cannot even source the number of missions/multiplayer maps in a Starcraft expansion pack. Quick Google throws up a GameSpot review saying there are "30 missions along with over a hundred multiplayer maps" - so there's the source for that bit of information right there. And that took me all of about 2 seconds to find - rst20xx (talk) 10:11, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

  And it's not like you even have a source for the number of missions in Starcraft either - rst20xx (talk) 10:17, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

  You will find that that GameSpot review, which is already used in the article, is most likely the only reliable source covering Insurrection out there. Insurrection and Retribution received very little press and fan coverage, they are not even close to Brood War in terms of profile and notability. -- Sabre (talk) 22:45, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

  Well OK then, you can at least still incorporate in the info from the GameSpot article! rst20xx (talk) 23:58, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

  I've added the bit on the number of levels, and the bit saying "it does not include new content such as units and graphical terrain tilesets" is basically the same as saying "is unable to add new music, tilesets, cinematics or units". The bit on being constructed in the Campaign Editor (and by extension the bits on new heroes and trigger sounds) is straight original research by me a few years back from going through the levels in the Campaign Editor and seeing how they were made (I hadn't quite grasped the OR policy back then), I can't verify it no matter how true it might be. -- Sabre (talk) 09:02, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

  OK, I suppose that will do for me then. Thank you and support - rst20xx (talk) 21:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support Zginder 2008-09-12T23:58Z (UTC)
• Support All of the articles are well written, and were it not for the volatility the StarCraft II article will experience when the game is released, it too would easily be a GA. - Yohhans ^talk 17:50, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support Reviewing StarCraft (series) was one of the more pleasurable moments of my life, finally something that wouldn't take more than 5 hours, as it was already too good. ;-) Good job, and I hope this passes. Pie is good ^{(Apple is the best)} 21:53, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Tiny comment In StarCraft, don't superscript the th in 26th per bullet 5(not sub-bullets) of WP:SEASON Pie is good ^{(Apple is the best)} 02:09, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Dealt with. -- Sabre (talk) 09:11, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose Based on the logic used in my Millennium Park GTC above it seems to me that StarCraft II article is a possible GA and should be required to prove otherwise. Is there something at Wikipedia:Peer review/StarCraft II/archive1 to indicate that this can not be a WP:GA. I don't think unreleased = unstable. I have created WP:GAs for three buildings under construction. See Trump International Hotel and Tower (Chicago). See also Barack Obama, John McCain, etc. Even politicians with rapidly changing positions in life, can pass. Unstable means content dispute related instability. If the article is complete it is eligible for GA.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:50, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

  <discussion moved to talk page>

• Comment I believe this issue applies to most of the current accepted game topics: the main series article really needs to explain the etymology of the name. Even it this topic, I believe that it is important for a reader to have that information available. Nergaal (talk) 22:52, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• There's nothing to really say on the series' name, I've certainly not come across anything in any sources I've seen, let alone reliable ones. Just seems like a case of "we need a spacey name for our product" "how about StarCraft?" "yeah ok". -- Sabre (talk) 11:27, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Rreagan007 (talk) 14:56, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support — excellent work. sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 16:29, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
• Close with consensus to promote - rst20xx (talk) 19:00, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Final Fantasy XII

Note this was a Good Topics nomination - rst20xx (talk) 23:17, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Main page	Articles
Final Fantasy XII	Final Fantasy XII: Revenant Wings - Characters of Final Fantasy XII - Discography of Final Fantasy XII - Ivalice

The work put into the articles related to Final Fantasy XII will finally be on display, and I am very proud to submit the great work of those at Final Fantasy Wikiproject as the first video game good topic. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:08, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support Hooray, an article I made is going to be in a GT! --PresN (talk) 20:19, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support — Deckiller 20:36, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support: The topic looks to satisfy the quality and scope criteria, and would be a fine addition to the newly formed Good topics. Good job editors. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 21:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC))
• Neutral - the only possible addition I could find is Kiss Me Good-Bye. I am undecided whether this is notable enough to be a required inclusion - rst20xx (talk) 00:01, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

  I put all of the good, sourced info from Kiss Me Good-Bye into Discography of Final Fantasy XII, and I only left it alive to avoid stepping on anyone else's toes. So, if you feel it must be included in the topic, I will just kill the article and redirect. --PresN (talk) 02:23, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

  I wouldn't support you doing that, as some information would be lost, such as track list and charts (sourced or not). And also as you said, you would definitely be stepping on people's toes. Anyway, I'll stick with neutral, so no need to kill it - rst20xx (talk) 03:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

  I'd merge in the tracklist, that could be sourced to the album itself, but yeah, the charts would vanish, I couldn't find any sources for that. --PresN (talk) 03:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

  You could try contacting the editor that originally added them. Though none of this gets round the toe-stepping - rst20xx (talk) 03:16, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

  And look, this single surely must have been very notable in Japan, considering what it is. So it must surely merit its own article. It's just that, being as how we're all English, we can't understand the sources ourselves. But the future potential for growth is there, if some Japanese person comes along and starts editing, so I really oppose any merge - rst20xx (talk) 03:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

  Is "Kiss me Good-Bye" really essential to the topic? I view it more like a supplementary article that goes into a minute level of detail of FFXII. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 04:27, 11 September 2008 (UTC))

  I don't know. This is why I voted neutral and not oppose! rst20xx (talk) 15:18, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support - complete topic. sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 03:11, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support - All that work on this topic is worth it! — Blue。 17:06, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support - Definitely well done.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 10:16, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support Zginder 2008-09-13T05:13Z (UTC)

Close with consensus to promote - rst20xx (talk) 23:17, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Supplementary nominations

1. Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Final Fantasy XII/addition1

47 Ursae Majoris

Main page	Articles
47 Ursae Majoris	47 Ursae Majoris b · 47 Ursae Majoris c

All the articles have been promoted by the retired user Chaos syndrome

One of the first planetary systems to be discovered [1]. Nergaal (talk) 01:39, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support - though what happened to 47 Ursae Majoris a? rst20xx (talk) 15:24, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support - the star is a (or A)- they name them in the order the objects are found, and since the star is largest, it tends to be a. The planets are not always in alphabetical order heading out from the star either- if they find an outer one first, it gets b, and is not renamed if they find one closer to the star. --PresN (talk) 16:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

  Ahhhh okay thanks - rst20xx (talk) 16:56, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support Appears to meet criteria. Zginder 2008-09-11T16:46Z (UTC)
• Support - The topic seems well defined, and and meets the criteria. Nice to see more and more space related articles brought to the topics pages. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:26, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support nice job :) --Admrb♉ltz (talk) 02:17, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
• Close as consensus to promote --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 15:20, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Upsilon Andromedae

All the articles have been promoted by the retired user Chaos syndrome

Again, one of the earlier systems.[2] Nergaal (talk) 01:42, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support - a binary star, cool - rst20xx (talk) 15:23, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support --PresN (talk) 16:21, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support - What is there to find against it. user:Zginder
• Support - Meets the criteria, good to see a short space topic acknowledged. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:28, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support nice job :) --Admrb♉ltz (talk) 02:17, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
• Close as consensus to promote --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 15:01, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Gliese 876

All the articles have been promoted by the retired user Chaos syndrome

I believe this system had the first Super-Earth.[3] Nergaal (talk) 01:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support - rst20xx (talk) 15:21, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support --PresN (talk) 16:21, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support - Zginder 2008-09-11T16:53Z (UTC)
• Support - Hurray for another space topic! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:32, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support nice job :) --Admrb♉ltz (talk) 02:18, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
• Close as consensus to promote --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 14:33, 18 September 2008 (UTC)