I've been working on this featured topic for a little under two years now, and I think it meets all the requirements. More than a third of the articles are FAs (including one FL), and the remainder are GAs. I'm satisfied with my work, and I hope you will be too. If you have any questions, comments, or concerns, please leave a note on my talk page.
JKBrooks85 (
talk)
23:04, 7 September 2009 (UTC)reply
Support - this is a fantastic topic, it is always great when a topic of this size comes along. It has taken a lot of dedication on your part to get this topic to where it is today, and you fully deserve the promotion that I hope will result. The only minor issue I can find that needs addressing is that the section on the 2009 Orange Bowl in the lead article needs expanding with details of the match - I guess you last updated it before the match was played -
rst20xx (
talk)
23:50, 7 September 2009 (UTC)reply
Support It's pretty cool how you dedicated most of your Wikipedia time on 22 of these articles (that's how much I counted from your userpage). I might say, well done! -- [[
SRE.K.A.L.|
L.A.K.ERS]]00:02, 8 September 2009 (UTC)reply
Comment In regard to the topic article, there needs to be consistency in the score boxes: They should all be positioned below the Main article links, not some above them. Also in the score boxes, they vary in order of teams: is it supposed to be the designated home team, which isn't mentioned elsewhere? I don't care which but pick winner on top, Virginia Tech on top, or make it clear that's the home team. The section on the most recent game, the 2009 Orange Bowl, needs to be expanded to be in line with the others in length. You also need consistency among the game articles. One thing I noticed was variable header titles. Pregame buildup or Pre-game buildup? Postgame effects, Post-game effects, or Aftereffects? Maybe the Wikiproject has a standard layout, otherwise, pick any one of them and stick with it. Rather than Notes sections, they should all be References sections. Great job overall!
Reywas92Talk00:34, 8 September 2009 (UTC)reply
Looked like
1996 Orange Bowl (December) was the only one where the infobox was above the main template. The team order is defined in the template as home/visitor. I'd suggest talking to the template author if you think that should be made more clear. I've also gone through to standardize section titles and work on that length item in the parent article. Thanks for the comments!
JKBrooks85 (
talk)
11:04, 8 September 2009 (UTC)reply
Oh, and about the notes/references item, I use "Notes" because in articles like
Trans-Alaska Pipeline System, I use book/video references that are cited frequently. That isn't so much the case in these articles since there's no book cites, but I prefer to keep a consistent style with myself, similar to the way I don't use citation templates. The naming convention comes from
Wikipedia:LAYOUT#Notes and References.
JKBrooks85 (
talk)
11:07, 8 September 2009 (UTC)reply
Actually I mean the order of the scorebox and Main article links on the main list. Up to 2003 the scoreboxes are correctly below the links, but after that they're above.
Reywas92Talk21:30, 8 September 2009 (UTC)reply
Thanks. That's one thing I was keeping an eye on. Since eight items are featured, and there'll be 24 items in the list after January, I shouldn't have to get another featured item until 2011.
JKBrooks85 (
talk)
23:33, 10 September 2009 (UTC)reply
I'm nominating this because all of the articles within the topic are featured. Two possible short articles that wouldn't have passed FL independently have actually been merged into the main team article, making this topic comprehensive and informative. It's also a sister topic to
Wikipedia:Featured topics/Silver Slugger Award, both of which will eventually be daughter topics of the proposed "Awards in Major League Baseball" topic. Thanks.
KV5 (
Talk •
Phils)
11:55, 30 August 2009 (UTC)reply
After some discussion at
Wikipedia_talk:FTC#Victoria_Cross I think this is the best course of action for this topic. The master list for this is the campaign list. Given the technical restrictions and for page management larger lists are forked out but are essentially part of the main list, hence why I think this topic is the best way forward. I intend to eventually have this as a subtopic of the already featured
Victoria Cross topic as envisaged at
my sandbox. I think this is a complete and rounded topic that meets the FT criteria and I leave it to your consideration. Regards,
Woody (
talk)
16:22, 14 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Support I think I criticised pretty much every list in this topic and Woody worked tirelessly to fix each one up to standard. It's irrefutable that all lists are (recently) featured and I believe that the top-level list is significant enough to warrant a featured topic here.
The Rambling Man (
talk)
17:42, 14 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Support - I, too, had the pleasure of reviewing some of these lists. This is an excellent, and complete, topic that satisfies the criteria. Well done, Woody! Cheers,
Abraham, B.S. (
talk)
23:35, 14 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Comment - I'm not really sure which way to vote on this (oppose?), but as per the above-linked discussion, I think this topic should be included in the existing VC topic. The end result would only be 13 articles and topics go up to 30 articles before being considered too big (in fact if
all the VC articles were combined into one topic that would only be 29 I think, including the 3 proposed A-Z articles in the sandbox). I realise it looks more impressive to have 2 topics instead of one but this is not in itself an argument to have them separate. It is more useful to have just one topic, and it is worth bearing in mind that the
WP:FT page is already taller than the
WP:FA page. Recommendations at
WP:FT? state that "a topic should not be excessively sub-divided; an all-encompassing topic of six articles is better than two topics of three each" so that seems to me to advocate a general policy of combining topics, assuming the end result is comprehensive, and isn't too big. In summary, I'd favour this:
The topic will be somewhat comprehensive with just the 13 articles listed above in the sense that every single recipient will now be listed once - in excluding for the time being the other VC lists, all you're excluding is different ways of presenting the same data -
rst20xx (
talk)
23:39, 14 August 2009 (UTC)reply
For me this isn't about numbers, nor the "FT credits" as you seem to be implying (which is a fair enough assumption–alas inaccurate–we all have our own motivations). That the FT page is getting a bit big would suggest a redesign to me, not to reduce the number of FTCs. For me this is about the best presentation of these articles and I think the way envisaged at
User:Woody/Sandboxes/Victoria Cross/BoxOne#6 is the best way forward. Personally I don't think this is excessive sub-division, I think it is the logical way forward given the way these lists have been constructed.
Woody (
talk)
23:50, 14 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Well, OK, I didn't mean to imply your motives were to get more "FT credits", I didn't know where you were coming from, so was just covering that this wouldn't be a reason. For the reasons I stated above, I think the topics would be better merged, and further think they look better merged, but we'll have to see what others think -
rst20xx (
talk)
00:51, 15 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Good topic nomination. I am nominating these as they are the four parts of the Four Quartets series, published by
T S Eliot. They follow the same format and are connected to each other through the main page. They will probably never become FA from lack of public domain images of the author or the works.
Ottava Rima (
talk)
22:51, 17 September 2009 (UTC)reply
I try not to nominate anything unless I believe it is of a superior standard in both content and aesthetics than any current encyclopedia out there. Since others own multiple images of Eliot that are pertinent, I wouldn't be able to bring myself to pushing for them to go through without at least an image of Eliot (sure, an image on Dante, Aquinas, the locations, etc, can be found, but the author is an important part and would be ignored).
Ottava Rima (
talk)
23:06, 17 September 2009 (UTC)reply
There are none. The images we have of Eliot have never been verified as actually free. Copyright applies to all other images of him. The work was produced less than 70 years after author's death so the title page is copyrighted.
Ottava Rima (
talk)
02:18, 18 September 2009 (UTC)reply
Well we've got to have something for the box so for now I've just inserted the illustration of Eliot that's on the commons. If you find something else you'd rather have there just change it later.
Rreagan007 (
talk)
02:47, 18 September 2009 (UTC)reply
Support I suspected this was the plan when I saw the GAN queue a while ago! Have you considered creating a navbox to link these together? It could also link other works by Eliot - I suspect the "casual reader" of Wikipedia is more likely to be enticed to click on a poem/play name in a navbox than on a category.
BencherliteTalk23:31, 17 September 2009 (UTC)reply
Support but could you just call the topic "The Legacy"? I have looked through the other pages at
The Legacy and none of them seem worthy of their own topic, further I think the wider topic box should make it clear to anyone looking at it that the professional wrestling team is the Legacy being referred to here -
rst20xx (
talk)
14:55, 11 September 2009 (UTC)reply
Apologies, I forgot to watchlist this page. I have no problem with calling it just The Legacy - I assumed since the article needed a disambiguating title that the topic would also. How would I change this? Do I need to move this page or...? ♥
Nici♥
Vampire♥
Heart♥
10:16, 13 September 2009 (UTC)reply
I've been working on this featured topic for a little under two years now, and I think it meets all the requirements. More than a third of the articles are FAs (including one FL), and the remainder are GAs. I'm satisfied with my work, and I hope you will be too. If you have any questions, comments, or concerns, please leave a note on my talk page.
JKBrooks85 (
talk)
23:04, 7 September 2009 (UTC)reply
Support - this is a fantastic topic, it is always great when a topic of this size comes along. It has taken a lot of dedication on your part to get this topic to where it is today, and you fully deserve the promotion that I hope will result. The only minor issue I can find that needs addressing is that the section on the 2009 Orange Bowl in the lead article needs expanding with details of the match - I guess you last updated it before the match was played -
rst20xx (
talk)
23:50, 7 September 2009 (UTC)reply
Support It's pretty cool how you dedicated most of your Wikipedia time on 22 of these articles (that's how much I counted from your userpage). I might say, well done! -- [[
SRE.K.A.L.|
L.A.K.ERS]]00:02, 8 September 2009 (UTC)reply
Comment In regard to the topic article, there needs to be consistency in the score boxes: They should all be positioned below the Main article links, not some above them. Also in the score boxes, they vary in order of teams: is it supposed to be the designated home team, which isn't mentioned elsewhere? I don't care which but pick winner on top, Virginia Tech on top, or make it clear that's the home team. The section on the most recent game, the 2009 Orange Bowl, needs to be expanded to be in line with the others in length. You also need consistency among the game articles. One thing I noticed was variable header titles. Pregame buildup or Pre-game buildup? Postgame effects, Post-game effects, or Aftereffects? Maybe the Wikiproject has a standard layout, otherwise, pick any one of them and stick with it. Rather than Notes sections, they should all be References sections. Great job overall!
Reywas92Talk00:34, 8 September 2009 (UTC)reply
Looked like
1996 Orange Bowl (December) was the only one where the infobox was above the main template. The team order is defined in the template as home/visitor. I'd suggest talking to the template author if you think that should be made more clear. I've also gone through to standardize section titles and work on that length item in the parent article. Thanks for the comments!
JKBrooks85 (
talk)
11:04, 8 September 2009 (UTC)reply
Oh, and about the notes/references item, I use "Notes" because in articles like
Trans-Alaska Pipeline System, I use book/video references that are cited frequently. That isn't so much the case in these articles since there's no book cites, but I prefer to keep a consistent style with myself, similar to the way I don't use citation templates. The naming convention comes from
Wikipedia:LAYOUT#Notes and References.
JKBrooks85 (
talk)
11:07, 8 September 2009 (UTC)reply
Actually I mean the order of the scorebox and Main article links on the main list. Up to 2003 the scoreboxes are correctly below the links, but after that they're above.
Reywas92Talk21:30, 8 September 2009 (UTC)reply
Thanks. That's one thing I was keeping an eye on. Since eight items are featured, and there'll be 24 items in the list after January, I shouldn't have to get another featured item until 2011.
JKBrooks85 (
talk)
23:33, 10 September 2009 (UTC)reply
I'm nominating this because all of the articles within the topic are featured. Two possible short articles that wouldn't have passed FL independently have actually been merged into the main team article, making this topic comprehensive and informative. It's also a sister topic to
Wikipedia:Featured topics/Silver Slugger Award, both of which will eventually be daughter topics of the proposed "Awards in Major League Baseball" topic. Thanks.
KV5 (
Talk •
Phils)
11:55, 30 August 2009 (UTC)reply
After some discussion at
Wikipedia_talk:FTC#Victoria_Cross I think this is the best course of action for this topic. The master list for this is the campaign list. Given the technical restrictions and for page management larger lists are forked out but are essentially part of the main list, hence why I think this topic is the best way forward. I intend to eventually have this as a subtopic of the already featured
Victoria Cross topic as envisaged at
my sandbox. I think this is a complete and rounded topic that meets the FT criteria and I leave it to your consideration. Regards,
Woody (
talk)
16:22, 14 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Support I think I criticised pretty much every list in this topic and Woody worked tirelessly to fix each one up to standard. It's irrefutable that all lists are (recently) featured and I believe that the top-level list is significant enough to warrant a featured topic here.
The Rambling Man (
talk)
17:42, 14 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Support - I, too, had the pleasure of reviewing some of these lists. This is an excellent, and complete, topic that satisfies the criteria. Well done, Woody! Cheers,
Abraham, B.S. (
talk)
23:35, 14 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Comment - I'm not really sure which way to vote on this (oppose?), but as per the above-linked discussion, I think this topic should be included in the existing VC topic. The end result would only be 13 articles and topics go up to 30 articles before being considered too big (in fact if
all the VC articles were combined into one topic that would only be 29 I think, including the 3 proposed A-Z articles in the sandbox). I realise it looks more impressive to have 2 topics instead of one but this is not in itself an argument to have them separate. It is more useful to have just one topic, and it is worth bearing in mind that the
WP:FT page is already taller than the
WP:FA page. Recommendations at
WP:FT? state that "a topic should not be excessively sub-divided; an all-encompassing topic of six articles is better than two topics of three each" so that seems to me to advocate a general policy of combining topics, assuming the end result is comprehensive, and isn't too big. In summary, I'd favour this:
The topic will be somewhat comprehensive with just the 13 articles listed above in the sense that every single recipient will now be listed once - in excluding for the time being the other VC lists, all you're excluding is different ways of presenting the same data -
rst20xx (
talk)
23:39, 14 August 2009 (UTC)reply
For me this isn't about numbers, nor the "FT credits" as you seem to be implying (which is a fair enough assumption–alas inaccurate–we all have our own motivations). That the FT page is getting a bit big would suggest a redesign to me, not to reduce the number of FTCs. For me this is about the best presentation of these articles and I think the way envisaged at
User:Woody/Sandboxes/Victoria Cross/BoxOne#6 is the best way forward. Personally I don't think this is excessive sub-division, I think it is the logical way forward given the way these lists have been constructed.
Woody (
talk)
23:50, 14 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Well, OK, I didn't mean to imply your motives were to get more "FT credits", I didn't know where you were coming from, so was just covering that this wouldn't be a reason. For the reasons I stated above, I think the topics would be better merged, and further think they look better merged, but we'll have to see what others think -
rst20xx (
talk)
00:51, 15 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Good topic nomination. I am nominating these as they are the four parts of the Four Quartets series, published by
T S Eliot. They follow the same format and are connected to each other through the main page. They will probably never become FA from lack of public domain images of the author or the works.
Ottava Rima (
talk)
22:51, 17 September 2009 (UTC)reply
I try not to nominate anything unless I believe it is of a superior standard in both content and aesthetics than any current encyclopedia out there. Since others own multiple images of Eliot that are pertinent, I wouldn't be able to bring myself to pushing for them to go through without at least an image of Eliot (sure, an image on Dante, Aquinas, the locations, etc, can be found, but the author is an important part and would be ignored).
Ottava Rima (
talk)
23:06, 17 September 2009 (UTC)reply
There are none. The images we have of Eliot have never been verified as actually free. Copyright applies to all other images of him. The work was produced less than 70 years after author's death so the title page is copyrighted.
Ottava Rima (
talk)
02:18, 18 September 2009 (UTC)reply
Well we've got to have something for the box so for now I've just inserted the illustration of Eliot that's on the commons. If you find something else you'd rather have there just change it later.
Rreagan007 (
talk)
02:47, 18 September 2009 (UTC)reply
Support I suspected this was the plan when I saw the GAN queue a while ago! Have you considered creating a navbox to link these together? It could also link other works by Eliot - I suspect the "casual reader" of Wikipedia is more likely to be enticed to click on a poem/play name in a navbox than on a category.
BencherliteTalk23:31, 17 September 2009 (UTC)reply
Support but could you just call the topic "The Legacy"? I have looked through the other pages at
The Legacy and none of them seem worthy of their own topic, further I think the wider topic box should make it clear to anyone looking at it that the professional wrestling team is the Legacy being referred to here -
rst20xx (
talk)
14:55, 11 September 2009 (UTC)reply
Apologies, I forgot to watchlist this page. I have no problem with calling it just The Legacy - I assumed since the article needed a disambiguating title that the topic would also. How would I change this? Do I need to move this page or...? ♥
Nici♥
Vampire♥
Heart♥
10:16, 13 September 2009 (UTC)reply