Wikipedia:Featured and good topic removal candidates/Iowa-class battleships/archive1

Iowa class battleships edit

Iowa-class battleships

10 articles

USS Iowa (BB-61)

USS Iowa turret explosion

USS New Jersey (BB-62)

USS Missouri (BB-63)

USS Missouri grounding incident

USS Wisconsin (BB-64)

USS Illinois (BB-65)

USS Kentucky (BB-66)

Armament

This topic passed its retention on February 6, 2012 for the article USS Kentucky (BB-66), which was demoted from being a featured article last November. So the topic currently fails criterion 3(a).--十八 06:31, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~You really need to clarify that. Why does the demotion of another article (USS Kentucky) mean Iowa class battleships must be demoted also?~~ -Fnlayson (talk) 13:40, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, delisted from Featured Topic, not Featured Article. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:48, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...Yeah, to be fair, I didn't get that part at first either. I've put Illinois and Kentucky up for deletion, depending on what happens at the afd's this'll either be resolved there or if consensus is for keep then OMT personnel can work on Kentucky without feeling that all that work will be for nothing. Also, it would've been nice to have been forewarned that this was coming rather that to have found out about this via my watchlist. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:48, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that you weren't forewarned about it last November is what's troubling. At the very least, if you had a stake in the topic, should you not have realized that once one of the article's in the topic loses its status that the status of the topic would also be brought up? Well, the consensus was to keep both articles, so work should get started on the Kentucky if you want to retain the topic's status.--十八 10:14, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a poor man's two step to see if the basic issues have been addressed, which should be enough to get this up to GA-class for the time being. If I can muster some willpower I might drill into the article and take a closer look at what we have to work with and see if more couldn't be added to it. TomStar81 (Talk) 18:33, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The book report is also filled with issues for most of these articles. The topic really needs some work to be up to snuff. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:45, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The 'book report'? What pray tell is that? TomStar81 (Talk) 03:15, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The featured topic box has a few links in the top-left corner. Click on "report" and you will be taken to it. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:51, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some dead links and citation needed tags. Nergaal (talk) 16:27, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I made the final push to get Kentucky through GAN, so the topic is now fine as far as article ratings are concerned. The various tags highlighted on the book report still need to be addressed, though. Parsecboy (talk) 18:49, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although Nergaal raised a good point above, the issue that brought this featured topic here was the sub-standard article USS Kentucky (BB-66), and now that Kentucky has regained GA-Class status there is no justifiable reason given by the nominator for delisting this featured topic. Accordingly, I am !voting that its status as a featured topic be retained unless the nominator adds an additional commentary for delisting consideration. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:44, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Closed, topic kept at FT. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:38, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]