This is a renomination of a delisted topic that has been updated to meet the criteria. Two non-GA, non-FA articles have been filled out to GA status, and the article is complete until December. Let me know what you all think. --
JKBrooks85 (
talk) 06:46, 6 April 2011 (UTC)reply
Support appears complete, although I am worried it will be abandoned the same way it was in the past.
Nergaal (
talk) 18:57, 11 April 2011 (UTC)reply
I am nominating this for a Good Topic because I believe it is worthy for inclusion. I have worked on it for about a month or so and the GANs went by quickly thanks to the backlog elimination drive. --
MatthewRD 16:09, 1 April 2011 (UTC)reply
Why are these five episodes more notable than the other three?
Nergaal (
talk) 19:28, 1 April 2011 (UTC)reply
Because I can't find anything notable (GA worthy) for the other three, so I find it pointless to create articles on them. I thought that just because only a handful of articles exist, like
Supernatural (season 1), it shouldn't fail. --
MatthewRD 19:56, 1 April 2011 (UTC)reply
It is just a bit weird that 5 of the 8 are notable and not the others. Most of the other examples have 2 or 3 episodes out of something like 10. Over half being notable is a bit towards all of them being notable.
Nergaal (
talk) 01:17, 6 April 2011 (UTC)reply
Support: Having reviewed several of the above episodes, I don't see a problem with having an incomplete season as a featured topic (so long as the remaining episodes remain redirects). However, it would be nice for those 3 remaining episodes to be expanded into good articles eventually. As the above articles are well-written and interesting to read (considering I've never watched the show), I'll give it my support.
Ruby2010talk 04:37, 7 April 2011 (UTC)reply
Oppose I am not convinced that a season can have 5 notable episodes, and 3 non-notable ones.
Nergaal (
talk) 18:57, 11 April 2011 (UTC)reply
How can I convince you? Should I add production and reception sections on the three missing episodes on the series talk page to show you how little there is? I said before, the other are not notable because there I could find barely anything on the other three, mabe the odd reviews, but not nearly enough production. For example, for "A Chance for Peace", the only production I could find is the writing anf directing credits, and mention the return of a character from the third series. It's also the only episode in the series not to have a review from
TV Scoop(No review marked "TV Review: Spooks, BBC One, Monday 10 November, 9pm"), so reception section is also very limited. That's it. Is that enough to warrant a good article? No. I'm sorry you feel that way, but I say again, there are episodes that are non-notable. --
MatthewRD 13:12, 12 April 2011 (UTC)reply
Support I am convinced.
Zginder 2011-04-23T21:40Z (
UTC)
There's only two supports and one oppose. I really would like there to be more comments made before I made a decision.
GamerPro64 00:30, 11 May 2011 (UTC)reply
Then perhaps would you post a comment? --
MatthewRD 06:33, 12 May 2011 (UTC)reply
Support precedent is clearly set at
Smallville (season 1),
Supernatural (season 1) (and again at
FTRC) and
Supernatural (season 2) that not every episode must have an article. Also, 1d appears to me to mean not that the articles don't exist but that the topic would not cover those, if for example there were a stub episode article that would be ignored for this FTC, which is not the case here. (Note: I was contacted by the nominator for my input). Xeworlebi(
talk) 10:50, 12 May 2011 (UTC)reply
Comment - I don't understand why K-9d is in front of the other two Keplers.
GamerPro64 (
talk) 21:05, 26 March 2011 (UTC)reply
Kepler-9d is the closest of the planets to Kepler-9. It's listed as 'd' because it was discovered only after 9b and 9c were.
Nstock (
talk) 19:48, 27 March 2011 (UTC)reply
Comment - I just noticed that
Kepler Mission is part of the book. Does that mean that it has to be part of the topic?
GamerPro64 (
talk) 23:07, 5 April 2011 (UTC)reply
No! The Kepler mission has reported over a dozen confirmed planets so far and it has over 1200 candidates awaiting confirmation. In theory at least, this topic would be a sub-sub-topic on the mission one.
Nergaal (
talk) 01:24, 6 April 2011 (UTC)reply
Nah it doesn't need to be part of the topic. It's an appendix to the book mostly. Although the
Kepler mission could use some cleanup. There are some deadlinks, and other issues (see book report). Headbomb {
talk /
contribs /
physics /
books} 17:58, 12 April 2011 (UTC)reply
Support The topic is not the Kepler mission, it is a particular star system, and therefore complete.
Courcelles 08:24, 6 April 2011 (UTC)reply
Question: What are the chances that an additional planet will be discovered in the system?
JKBrooks85 (
talk) 07:39, 13 April 2011 (UTC)reply
Further discoveries in an already-reported system are not too common.
Nergaal (
talk) 01:32, 17 April 2011 (UTC)reply
My apologies for the delay. Kepler-9 is a single system that has been observed by the Kepler satellite; as the topic is about the Kepler-9 system and not the satellite, the topic is complete. It is in the book because, as Headbomb said, it serves as more of an appendix. --Starstriker7(
Talk) 03:27, 30 April 2011 (UTC)reply
Yes, you've
seenthisbefore. But at least now it's a topic without gaps (all games are here, Good or Featured, with the featured list of media as a main article), or discordance in its nomination. --
igordebraga≠ 00:04, 4 April 2011 (UTC)reply
As is, there are not enough articles of featured quality for this to pass as featured. Definitely Support good topic, however. There are nine good articles and four featured articles, putting the number of featured articles as 1/3 of the total number of articles, below the threshold of 1/2. We would need to promote three articles to featured quality to adhere to the FA topic criteria. -
The New Age Retro Hippieused Ruler!Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 00:23, 4 April 2011 (UTC)reply
Personally I think some sort of division between the main series and the Prime series should be made. I've given it a shot. Feel free to revert/tweak/whatever. Headbomb {
talk /
contribs /
physics /
books} 02:55, 4 April 2011 (UTC)reply
Don't worry, all GTC's are formated as FTC. It is just a technical issue since there is not GT => FT promotion process formally, all GTCs are FTCs but are promoted as GTs.
Nergaal (
talk) 21:54, 5 April 2011 (UTC)reply
Appears complete, but what about
Metroid? Is there a plan to include it at some point?
Nergaal (
talk) 01:08, 6 April 2011 (UTC)reply
It's not a title, though. Eventually I hope we can create one single Metroid topic containing every article related to it, though. There are less than half a dozen articles left, I think. Gary King(
talk ·
scripts) 01:28, 6 April 2011 (UTC)reply
This is a renomination of a delisted topic that has been updated to meet the criteria. Two non-GA, non-FA articles have been filled out to GA status, and the article is complete until December. Let me know what you all think. --
JKBrooks85 (
talk) 06:46, 6 April 2011 (UTC)reply
Support appears complete, although I am worried it will be abandoned the same way it was in the past.
Nergaal (
talk) 18:57, 11 April 2011 (UTC)reply
I am nominating this for a Good Topic because I believe it is worthy for inclusion. I have worked on it for about a month or so and the GANs went by quickly thanks to the backlog elimination drive. --
MatthewRD 16:09, 1 April 2011 (UTC)reply
Why are these five episodes more notable than the other three?
Nergaal (
talk) 19:28, 1 April 2011 (UTC)reply
Because I can't find anything notable (GA worthy) for the other three, so I find it pointless to create articles on them. I thought that just because only a handful of articles exist, like
Supernatural (season 1), it shouldn't fail. --
MatthewRD 19:56, 1 April 2011 (UTC)reply
It is just a bit weird that 5 of the 8 are notable and not the others. Most of the other examples have 2 or 3 episodes out of something like 10. Over half being notable is a bit towards all of them being notable.
Nergaal (
talk) 01:17, 6 April 2011 (UTC)reply
Support: Having reviewed several of the above episodes, I don't see a problem with having an incomplete season as a featured topic (so long as the remaining episodes remain redirects). However, it would be nice for those 3 remaining episodes to be expanded into good articles eventually. As the above articles are well-written and interesting to read (considering I've never watched the show), I'll give it my support.
Ruby2010talk 04:37, 7 April 2011 (UTC)reply
Oppose I am not convinced that a season can have 5 notable episodes, and 3 non-notable ones.
Nergaal (
talk) 18:57, 11 April 2011 (UTC)reply
How can I convince you? Should I add production and reception sections on the three missing episodes on the series talk page to show you how little there is? I said before, the other are not notable because there I could find barely anything on the other three, mabe the odd reviews, but not nearly enough production. For example, for "A Chance for Peace", the only production I could find is the writing anf directing credits, and mention the return of a character from the third series. It's also the only episode in the series not to have a review from
TV Scoop(No review marked "TV Review: Spooks, BBC One, Monday 10 November, 9pm"), so reception section is also very limited. That's it. Is that enough to warrant a good article? No. I'm sorry you feel that way, but I say again, there are episodes that are non-notable. --
MatthewRD 13:12, 12 April 2011 (UTC)reply
Support I am convinced.
Zginder 2011-04-23T21:40Z (
UTC)
There's only two supports and one oppose. I really would like there to be more comments made before I made a decision.
GamerPro64 00:30, 11 May 2011 (UTC)reply
Then perhaps would you post a comment? --
MatthewRD 06:33, 12 May 2011 (UTC)reply
Support precedent is clearly set at
Smallville (season 1),
Supernatural (season 1) (and again at
FTRC) and
Supernatural (season 2) that not every episode must have an article. Also, 1d appears to me to mean not that the articles don't exist but that the topic would not cover those, if for example there were a stub episode article that would be ignored for this FTC, which is not the case here. (Note: I was contacted by the nominator for my input). Xeworlebi(
talk) 10:50, 12 May 2011 (UTC)reply
Comment - I don't understand why K-9d is in front of the other two Keplers.
GamerPro64 (
talk) 21:05, 26 March 2011 (UTC)reply
Kepler-9d is the closest of the planets to Kepler-9. It's listed as 'd' because it was discovered only after 9b and 9c were.
Nstock (
talk) 19:48, 27 March 2011 (UTC)reply
Comment - I just noticed that
Kepler Mission is part of the book. Does that mean that it has to be part of the topic?
GamerPro64 (
talk) 23:07, 5 April 2011 (UTC)reply
No! The Kepler mission has reported over a dozen confirmed planets so far and it has over 1200 candidates awaiting confirmation. In theory at least, this topic would be a sub-sub-topic on the mission one.
Nergaal (
talk) 01:24, 6 April 2011 (UTC)reply
Nah it doesn't need to be part of the topic. It's an appendix to the book mostly. Although the
Kepler mission could use some cleanup. There are some deadlinks, and other issues (see book report). Headbomb {
talk /
contribs /
physics /
books} 17:58, 12 April 2011 (UTC)reply
Support The topic is not the Kepler mission, it is a particular star system, and therefore complete.
Courcelles 08:24, 6 April 2011 (UTC)reply
Question: What are the chances that an additional planet will be discovered in the system?
JKBrooks85 (
talk) 07:39, 13 April 2011 (UTC)reply
Further discoveries in an already-reported system are not too common.
Nergaal (
talk) 01:32, 17 April 2011 (UTC)reply
My apologies for the delay. Kepler-9 is a single system that has been observed by the Kepler satellite; as the topic is about the Kepler-9 system and not the satellite, the topic is complete. It is in the book because, as Headbomb said, it serves as more of an appendix. --Starstriker7(
Talk) 03:27, 30 April 2011 (UTC)reply
Yes, you've
seenthisbefore. But at least now it's a topic without gaps (all games are here, Good or Featured, with the featured list of media as a main article), or discordance in its nomination. --
igordebraga≠ 00:04, 4 April 2011 (UTC)reply
As is, there are not enough articles of featured quality for this to pass as featured. Definitely Support good topic, however. There are nine good articles and four featured articles, putting the number of featured articles as 1/3 of the total number of articles, below the threshold of 1/2. We would need to promote three articles to featured quality to adhere to the FA topic criteria. -
The New Age Retro Hippieused Ruler!Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 00:23, 4 April 2011 (UTC)reply
Personally I think some sort of division between the main series and the Prime series should be made. I've given it a shot. Feel free to revert/tweak/whatever. Headbomb {
talk /
contribs /
physics /
books} 02:55, 4 April 2011 (UTC)reply
Don't worry, all GTC's are formated as FTC. It is just a technical issue since there is not GT => FT promotion process formally, all GTCs are FTCs but are promoted as GTs.
Nergaal (
talk) 21:54, 5 April 2011 (UTC)reply
Appears complete, but what about
Metroid? Is there a plan to include it at some point?
Nergaal (
talk) 01:08, 6 April 2011 (UTC)reply
It's not a title, though. Eventually I hope we can create one single Metroid topic containing every article related to it, though. There are less than half a dozen articles left, I think. Gary King(
talk ·
scripts) 01:28, 6 April 2011 (UTC)reply