The proposed Good Article Topic would cover works, events, personnel, and accomplishments associated with the rock group U2 (which is the topic's lead article — a Featured Article). This topic would include 22 articles: 4 FA's, 1 Featured List, and 17 Good Articles. This topic covers a wide but fairly balanced collection of articles: 9 are songs, 3 are studio albums, 2 are tours, 2 are band members, and 2 are video releases. The WikiProject U2 is diligently working on promoting more articles (some of which are already GA listed in this proposed topic) so some of these may soon become FA, while additional GA's may be added in the future. The articles already of GA/FA are well-maintained by our project, so the likelihood of this potential topic ever being a candidate for removal is low. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 20:32, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as Staxringold: a good topic should not cherry-pick the best articles in a topic area. Ucucha 06:47, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - it's a good selection of articles, but they don't have a coherent theme. If you look at Template:U2 you'll see several fairly coherent groups. At the very least, it should include Bono and The Edge. If you're going to include a selection of albums, it would need to be their major ones - Boy and War would really need to be. If it's going to include their films, then Rattle and Hum really needs to be there. And I really don't think a Simpsons episode belongs here. There's definitely potential for a U2 FT, probably a group of FTs, but this isn't the right collection of articles. Guettarda (talk) 18:36, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Just for the purposes of clarification, you mean something such as U2 discography should have every album (and single?) as a GA before going for GT, correct? Or that a GT for U2 should be all four band members? GT for No Line on the Horizon should have the album, song, and tour articles all at GA or higher, etc? Melicans (talk, contributions) 18:46, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Basically, according to the FT criteria, you must include every article that is a subarticle of U2 and that does not itself fall under a subarticle. For example, if U2 discography is included, you don't need to include any individual album in the U2 featured topic. Ucucha 18:49, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Some things probably shouldn't have articles. So if you did an FT for an album, you wouldn't have to create articles for non-notable songs. The barrier for an FT/GT can be incredibly high sometimes, especially if a topic does not have good, logical breaks. Guettarda (talk) 20:04, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yeah, sorry, I should have clarified what I meant with the question; I didn't intend to say that every song should have an article when asking about that for a GT. Thanks to you both for the clarification. Melicans (talk, contributions) 20:08, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - this is not a defined topic, rather it is merely "all the article related to U2 which happen to be GA/FA". Unfortunately that's not how FTs work, sorry guys...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:59, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful oppose. Sorry Y2K, but it felt like the nomination was too hurried. I believe you know that without the principal artist of U2, ie Bono, or The Edge, the nomination will be incomplete always and is not a comprehensive bibliography of U2. I advice you to expand them to GA or FA as suitable and then come back and nominate it for FT. Also missing, the discography. I would love to see this FT back in the nomination myself. --Legolas(talk2me) 04:25, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose Suggesting withdrawn. This topic should be, as all above, U2, Bono, The Edge, Adam Clayton, Larry Mullen, Jr., their awards, their discography, their tours and their songs. TbhotchTalkC. 00:55, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Another hurricane good topic candidate, but this one is a little more complicated. Although not a GA the 1989 Pacific hurricane season has gone though an archived peer review, and it currently at GAN, but can not be promoted to GA status due to a backlog. YETropicalCyclone 04:00, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Most of the comments made at the Peer review as far as i can tell havent been dealt with. Also 1989 PHS doesnt look like it will pass its GAN unless radical improvements are made.Jason Rees (talk) 20:36, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I will go thourgh and fix the 1989 PHS tonight. YETropicalCyclone 01:23, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. According to criterion 3e, good topics can only include non-GA/FA/FL articles when those articles are "Items that are ineligible for featured article, featured list or good article status". Since you nominated the season article for GA, it is apparently not ineligible; you'll just have to wait until someone picks up the review and then come back here. Ucucha 06:25, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I struck the oppose, as the article now technically meets the criteria. However, as the below comments suggest the quality of the articles is not yet sufficient, I'm not supporting. Ucucha 06:28, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think Hurricane Ismael could have an article made on it for the topic. Category 3, did a bit of damage at least. WizardmanOperation Big Bear 21:18, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is not notable enough for it to be forced to be inclued. Mabey eventually, but not now. YETropicalCyclone 21:45, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My Oppose Still stands as the 1989 PHS is not off high quality and IMO should not off been awarded GA status.Jason Rees (talk) 23:53, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per quality of main article and Octave's sub-article not rating. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 23:58, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Both of your opposes font make sense because it still technically mets the criteria. YETropicalCyclone 00:11, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No it fails the [[1]] YE per criterion 3: "Each article is of high quality, including the referencing", which 1989 PHS is not.Jason Rees (talk) 00:34, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The main thing I look for in a GT/FT is mainly consensus that it'd good, but also that anything in the topic is of GA or FA status, and in this case it is. If there's an article that's not very good in it, that's a situation for those processes rather than here. WizardmanOperation Big Bear 01:50, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The question is what is a high quality? Decent too almost all readers? FA? A lot of info? Well-writern? That the main ssue. IMO high quality is equal to B/GA status. YETropicalCyclone 02:40, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Generally, that equals GA status. That's why we have it so each article has to at least be that status, so the content is looked at. WizardmanOperation Big Bear 02:59, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Now, I will make a deal. I will expnad the 1989 PHS. Please be penitence, I will try to guess this done before my vacation next Monday. Feel free to help. YETropicalCyclone 03:09, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Over the next few days, I'll see what I can do to help bring the two articles I've questioned above up to higher standards. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 12:28, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone through Octave's article and left a few comments on the talk page for further expansion. Overall, the article does meet GA standards so I'm not holding the WPTC standards against you with the article. I'll get to the season article in the coming days. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 15:48, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have fixed Octave and even added preps form the NHC. YETropicalCyclone 17:29, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have addressed the comments the could be addressed for both articles. YETropicalCyclone 17:38, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Never mid, I windthaw this nomination. YETropicalCyclone 17:54, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
