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

Star Wars characters

Main page	Articles
Category:Star Wars characters	Palpatine - Padmé Amidala - Jabba the Hutt - Obi-Wan Kenobi - Darth Vader - Max Rebo Band - Sarlacc

This topic includes characters from Star Wars that are currently Featured Articles or Good Articles. These are examples of articles written primarily from the out-of-universe perspective and contain a minimal amount of fancruft. Dmoon1 23:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• Support solid series. — Deckiller 23:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose. It's missing several very important characters like Han Salo, Princess Leia, Luke Skywalker, R2D2, and C3PO. Hurricanehink (talk) 23:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose per criterium #4 "There should not be any obvious gap (missing or stub article) in the topic.". The absence of Luke Skywalker is sufficient to fail this. Tompw (talk) 00:05, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• Whoops, we forgot about criterion 4 -=dumb look=-. Might as well withdraw. — Deckiller 00:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Sorry about that! I guess I was a bit confused in thinking that the articles in the topic needed to include only FAs & GAs. I withdraw this nomination. Dmoon1 03:01, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak oppose. Is missing several important characters. Jasca Ducato 11:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose per criterion 4. I think if one wants more Star Wars featured topics they should narrow their field a bit. "Star Wars characters" is too wide a net.LuciferMorgan 00:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
• Nomination was withdrawn on 15:40, 24 January 2007 - rst20xx (talk) 13:32, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Diamond

Main page	Articles
Diamond	Diamond - Material properties of diamond - Crystallographic defects in diamond - Carat (mass) - Diamond clarity - Diamond color - Diamond cut - Diamond cutting - Synthetic diamond - Diamond simulant - Diamond enhancement - Diamonds as an investment

Used to use {{Diamond}} (which could be tweaked and perhaps placed at the bottom) but the main article (Diamond, which is an FA) uses the others as subpages. The articles are well-written (Diamonds as an investment needs references but the others are done well). violet/riga (t) 10:57, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

• Object: Diamond looks like it'll be at FAR soon enough: only six inline citations and a huge lead. More than half of the other articles have references listed but no inline cites. Some do, but the one with the most has only 13, and most have only 5 or 6.--Dark Kubrick 15:53, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - Diamond has 3 citations needed, and, per above, the rest have small amounts of sourcing. Hurricanehink (talk) 16:11, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
• Fail - --Arctic Gnome 21:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Baleen whales

Main page	Articles
Baleen whale	Bowhead whale - Right whale - Fin Whale - Sei Whale - Bryde's Whale - Blue Whale - Minke Whale - Balaenoptera omurai - Humpback Whale - Gray Whale - Pygmy Right Whale

I don't know much about whales, but this topic looks pretty together, and it includes 5 FAs. The Weak points are Baleen whale and Balaenoptera omurai, but I think this is justified because the former just serves the role of a list for the subject, and the latter is a newly found species that has no more information to put in an article. --Arctic Gnome 00:49, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

• Conditional support. I think the main topic should have a bit more references and more content first. Hurricanehink (talk) 00:55, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Conditional support per hink. — Deckiller 09:05, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Object Humpback whale does not meet current FA criteria; Right whale barely passed a recent WP:FAR, the articles are inconsistently named (is whale capitalized or not?), so besides the three strong FAs, the rest of the topic is not in good shape. Why not point out to Wikipedia:WikiProject Cetaceans how close this could be to a featured topic, and encourage them to bring the other articles to at least GA standard, and cite the older FAs before they come up at WP:FAR? The topics that are legitimate *featured* topics got that way because of involved Projects or editors (usually one or two; for example, Saffron) - has the Cetacean Project been consulted about improving this category ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't think it makes much sense to say that an article is unacceptable because it "barely passed a recent WP:FAR". That implies that even being featured isn't good enough; they have to be strongly featured. That item aside, you have a point about talking to WikiProject Cetaceans; I'll see what they have to say. I agree that most nominations should come from the Wikiprojects. I was just trying to find some articles that might already be featured so that we had a respectable list of FTs to start out with. --Arctic Gnome 17:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Further, it is not required that articles be FAs - only that "several" be of featured standard. The rest have to be A-class or GAs. For this topic:
    • Featured Articles: Right whale, Fin Whale, Sei Whale, Blue Whale
    • Not rated: Bowhead whale, Balaenoptera omurai, Bryde's Whale, Minke Whale, Humpback Whale, Pygmy Right Whale
    • B-Class: Baleen whale, Gray Whale
  • Oppose - Baleen whale and Balaenoptera omurai not good enough. I apreciate Baleen whale is partly a list and partly an article, but it needs references (especially for the taxanomic classifcation). Balaenoptera omurai also lack references. Bryde's Whale, Minke Whale, Gray Whale and Pygmy Right Whale look good enough (I've nominated them for GA). Tompw (talk) 20:15, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
• Fail --Arctic Gnome 23:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Monarchs of the United Kingdom

Main page	Articles
Monarchs of the United Kingdom (category)	George III of the United Kingdom - George IV of the United Kingdom - William IV of the United Kingdom - Victoria of the United Kingdom - Edward VII of the United Kingdom - George V of the United Kingdom - Edward VIII of the United Kingdom - George VI of the United Kingdom - Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom

While it's probably a faux pas to nominate more than one topic at a time, I promise I'll stop here, just trying to get a few FTs on the page. George III, IV, and William IV are all FAs, and Victoria is a former FA. --PresN 03:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• Support seems consistent enough; only a few issues on the whole. — Deckiller 03:54, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support - Full, unified topic, all FA or qualified for GA. --Arctic Gnome 06:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - Most of those articles are unreferenced and will be coming up at WP:FAR. Sandy (Talk) 11:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
  • A couple of them may loose featured status, but I think most will keep it. The main problem is references, which does need to be fixed. However, I still think all the articles are complete, and make this nominee a good example of gap-free coverage of a topic, which to me is what we are mostly looking for. --Arctic Gnome 18:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Based on what do you say that most will retain their featured status? Emsworth hasn't helped reference one of his articles in FARC. No one is tending to those articles, they are being FARC'd at the rate we can process them, and we no longer even know if they're accurate because no one is watching them. Few people are interested in referencing someone else's old FA, even if they can locate the sources. Sandy (Talk) 04:18, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose due to lack of references. Hurricanehink (talk) 22:17, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
• Only George IV and Edward VII have big problems with references. I've put notes on those article's talk pages about it. I suggest that we now leave this nomination open for another week to see if anyone finds some new references. --Arctic Gnome 14:51, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I should have been more specific. A preliminary (perhaps incomplete) list of under/uncited bio/royalty FAs can be found here, and those uncited by Lord Emsworth are here. Those that have already lost FA status can be found here. The single bio/royalty article that was cited by other editors since we began notifying Projects many months ago is Mary II of England. Editors have found it very hard to reconstruct the info necessary to cite this older work. The other articles lacking citations have not yet come up at at WP:FAR because there are too many to process at once, and we try not to overburden any given project, hoping that the Projects or individual editors will "save" these older FAs - so far, they've shown no interest.

• On your list above, the following remain uncited and would not pass FAC today: George III of the United Kingdom, George IV of the United Kingdom, and William IV of the United Kingdom.
• Victoria of the United Kingdom already had FA status removed.
• Edward VII of the United Kingdom is uncited, neither GA nor FA.
• The only articles partially cited on your list are George V of the United Kingdom, Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, George VI of the United Kingdom and Edward VIII of the United Kingdom; they are not yet listed GA, and would not likely attain FA in their current state.

As far as I can tell, the list above does not include a single solid FA - rather a few that will soon come up at WP:FAR as they no longer meet criteria - and a number of others which aren't even GA and are poorly cited. Even if the articles you notified on talk page were to be thoroughly cited, you would still be left with a topic without a single, strong Featured Article meeting current rquirements. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose per Sandy's reasoning. LuciferMorgan 22:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• Fail --Arctic Gnome 03:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Chemical elements

Main page	Articles
Chemical elements	Category:Chemical elements - Periodic table (large version) - List of elements by name - List of elements by symbol - Hydrogen - Helium - Lithium - Beryllium - Boron - Carbon - et cetera through Ununoctium

• Support as nominator. This is a comprehensive, consistently designed, and detailed series of articles on all 118 currently recognized elements with some supporting articles and featured lists. --CBD 13:55, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose - Hate to do this, but there's the glaring flaw with this nom- all 118 element articles need to be A/GA/FA, and they're not. Just picking at random, Dysprosium and Bohrium are Start-class. One day this will be a featured topic, I'm certain. But right now, a lot of the lesser-known-element articles aren't developed enough. --PresN 17:07, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose, per above. How about starting smaller and going with a more specialized group? For example, just propose the noble gases. Hurricanehink (talk) 22:15, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose, per both above. --Arctic Gnome 00:33, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

• Fail --Arctic Gnome 19:03, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Cricket

Main page	Articles
Cricket	History of cricket - Laws of cricket - International structure of cricket

The Cricket series is so complex, so I've decided to nominate the best, most essensial four articles in this series. If other series (history of cricket, test cricket, forms of cricket) can be improved, they can follow. — Deckiller 04:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment on super-topics - I’m not sure about how to handle overall super topics like this one that could have many topics within them. We should figure that out on the project’s talk page, and until we have a policy on how to handle them I’m voting against all most supper topics. --Arctic Gnome 06:46, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose – Because of gaps in topic. Cricket must have hundreds of articles and could be divided into several reasonably sized subtopics. I assume that this nomination is just for the central, key articles about cricket, and in that case I think you are still missing some. I think that central articles on cricket would also include List of cricket terms, Cricket statistics, Cricket World Cup, and The result in cricket. --Arctic Gnome 06:46, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. At a quick glance, Cricket has almost no inline sources. Hurricanehink (talk) 22:21, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose: None of the articles give adequate (if at all) attention to cricket played by women. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 00:41, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Fail --Arctic Gnome 17:57, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Star Fox Games

Main page	Articles
Star Fox (series)	Star Fox (video game) - Star Fox 64 - Star Fox Adventures - Star Fox: Assault - Star Fox Command

Star Fox series and video game are B-class, while the rest are all GA class. --PresN 16:27, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Support Oppose - It meets all of the requirements of a complete and unified topic no problem. While all of the articles are themselves complete, well written, and referenced, I would have to see at least one or two of them be FA to give the topic my full support. --Arctic Gnome 18:30, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Clyde has a point. You should make that main article featured. --Arctic Gnome 18:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak oppose - IMO, featured topics should include at least one featured article. If we can elevate one of those articles to featured status, and maybe slightly clean up the rest, I think we can consider supporting. — Deckiller 23:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose Like what was previously said, none of the articles are featured. It would be the only featured list without a single FA, and I don't think lowering our standards would be a good idea. Also, Star Fox, the first game and one of the most important, is rated B. Perhaps that would be best to go for FA, so the greatest weakness of the series becomes it's greatest strength. Also, it would be a good anchor for the series. Just my 2 cents--Clyde (talk) 00:18, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, sorry, but I'd like to see at least one FA and some more overall sources. Hurricanehink (talk) 18:33, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Fail --Arctic Gnome 14:36, 7 January 2007 (UTC)