Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/Failed log/August 2008

Lost, seasons of (1st supplementary nomination)

This topic is already featured. It is being re-nominated to add additional items. See Wikipedia talk:Featured topics/Seasons of Lost for discussions of the topic's previous nominations. The additional items are:

1. Lost (season 5)

Season 5 premieres in January/February 2009 and will air its finale in May. The page is well-sourced and looks like any of the other season articles, but without episode summaries and reception sections. Thanks, –thedemonhog talk • edits 20:31, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - Lost (season 5) has not been through Peer Review. Cirt (talk) 20:51, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
• Withdrawn by nominator - rst20xx (talk) 21:18, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Planets in the Solar System

Main page	Articles
Planet	Mercury (planet) - Venus (planet) - Earth - Mars - Jupiter - Saturn - Uranus - Neptune - Definition of planet - 2006 definition of planet

This acts as a partner to the Dwarf Plant topic and is a subtopic of the rather massive Solar System one. -- _{Escape Artist Swyer} ^{Talk to me} _{The mess I've made} 13:56, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. The Solar System topic is already in the process of being broken up, and Planet is a more general topic that includes extrasolar and rogue planets. Serendi^podous 13:57, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - any decisions made here need to be through consensus amongst the creators of the existing topics, not by drive-by nominations. Quote from above, "Nominators who are not significant contributors to the articles of the topic should consult regular editors of the articles prior to nomination" - rst20xx (talk) 17:19, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

  Unless you're making a point, in which case, well played - rst20xx (talk) 17:45, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

• Withdraw nom It's probably too similar to Solar System anyway. Sorry. -- _{Escape Artist Swyer} ^{Talk to me} _{The mess I've made} 20:12, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support - If we are trying to make a point, I'll gladly oblige. There is nothing in the featured topic criteria that says this cannot or should not become a topic, and if people want to start that discussion, I am all for it. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 06:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose—the title of the topic is "Planets in the Solar System", but the lead article is the generic planet, covering the general concept and planets outside the solar system. Pagrashtak 13:45, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose per Pagrashtak and Serendipodous Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 03:15, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
• Withdrawn by nominator --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 16:57, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

• A correct version of the topic should look like:

with the last two optional; the obvious subtopic should be:

Second row being optional. Nergaal (talk) 19:59, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Guitar Hero

Main page

Articles

Guitar Hero

Guitar Hero (video game) - Guitar Hero II - Guitar Hero III: Legends of Rock - Guitar Hero: On Tour - Guitar Hero III Mobile - Guitar Hero Encore: Rocks the 80s - Guitar Hero: Aerosmith - Guitar Hero World Tour - Guitar Hero: Metallica - Guitar Hero On Tour: Decades - List of songs in Guitar Hero - List of songs in Guitar Hero II - List of songs in Guitar Hero III: Legends of Rock - List of songs in Guitar Hero Encore: Rocks the 80s - List of songs in Guitar Hero: Aerosmith

The FLC for List of songs in Guitar Hero III: Legends of Rock is pending but as the format and approach follows the other lists, I do not expect this to be a problem.

I will note that there are three other GH articles for games that have not been released, and thus presently excluded from this FTC but are expected to be needed to be added after release:

• Guitar Hero World Tour - Due out in Oct, so expect to have this, and its song list, to GA/FL by Jan 09.
• Guitar Hero: Metallica - Due out before Mar 09 - exact date not yet set. Expect this and its song list to be GA/FL three months after.
• Guitar Hero On Tour: Decades - Due out before end of year, exact date not yet set. Expect this (possibly with song list) to be GA/FL three months after.

I will note that those that have helped with all the articles have kept these to high quality - most of the GAs could probably be FAs with little trouble, just don't want to flood the FAC list with these articles. The above future game articles are being kept at the same level of scrutiny by wannabe addons without valid proof as well. --MASEM 02:47, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support - I've been waiting for this topic to appear. You really should have waited for the FLC to finish, though. --PresN (talk) 13:48, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - out of curiosity, what would the FT image be? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 14:06, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Good question; I know I saw at one point a cartoon-like guitar image in some WP project box but I can't find it presently, but I also found Image:Guitar Hero 43 Icon.png as a possible image. Ideally, but I haven't the skills, an SVG image of a GH controller (eg a cartoon) making sure the fret buttons are visible would be what I'd like to see. --MASEM 14:23, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
    • I could do you a raster optimized for the small size of the FTC, but as I am physically seperated from my copy of Illustrator for the duration I couldn't do a SVG. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 17:42, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose for two reasons. Firstly (and much less importantly), you should have waited for List of songs in Guitar Hero III: Legends of Rock to pass its FLC. Secondly (and very importantly), this fails criteria 3.c which states that the 3 not-yet-released games you listed should in fact be included in the topic, following each undergoing "a completed peer review, with all important problems fixed". And before anybody points to Kingdom Hearts or Atlantic Coast Conference football championship games, these topics are currently under retention for also failing this criteria.

I'm very impressed with the amount of work you've done though, this just isn't quite there yet - rst20xx (talk) 15:06, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• Reluctant oppose: Rst20xx is right, the three unreleased games will need to undergo peer review before this topic can be complete. Given the amount of time it would take to complete the peer reviews, it might be best to withdraw the nomination until this is done. That way the GHIII list will have also passed FL and the topic would pass with flying colors. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:20, 1 August 2008 (UTC))

  The problem is that with the promise of more GH titles coming out, there is never going to be a point where we will not have future GH games. I did ask about this before [1], and other comments since suggested this is a reasonable approach (leaving out unreleased games) when the topic is never expected to be reasonably completed [2]. --MASEM 15:32, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

  And more specifically a problem here, at the present, GH: Metallica and GHOT:Decades can only stay as stubs because those articles reflect pretty much exactly what is known on the topic. I can appreciate getting a PR on GHWT, but at the rate PRs go and the games are being introduced to the series, by the time the GHWT is PRd, we'd have more info on one of the above, meaning that would need a PR, and during all this, another new game would be announced, starting as a stub, starting a vicious circle. --MASEM 15:37, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

  I don't think you have to wait for the series to finish, just for a lull in the release schedule. The cycle from when a string of games are announced to when the next set is announced should be long enough for the three articles to go under peer review. Put two up at the same time or a day apart if need be. I'm sure reviewers will be sympathetic; just mention the reason for the peer review. See KH 358/s PR and KH BBS PR.

  I sure if you space each one about 4-5 days from each other, all three could be peer reviewed in a month. The fact that they are so short will actually help speed the process along some. Another solution for Guitar Hero On Tour: Decades is to merge it to Guitar Hero: On Tour in a "Sequel" section. There are ways to make this work and still stay within the criteria. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:06, 1 August 2008 (UTC))

  The rules actually changed after those discussions you linked took place (scroll down a bit), and they changed specifically to deal with this kind of situation. So that discussion is now incorrect. The reason the rules were changed was because future/ongoing articles are still part of topics even if they haven't happened yet, and hence should be included even if it is only as audited articles. I appreciate your comments about some of the peer reviews being pretty pointless, but you only need one sweep of peer reviews, not continuous cycles of them, and I hope if you think about it you'll realise that given these articles should be (and need to be!) included, this is the best possible compromise for doing things.

  And to answer your "moving targets" question, I'm sure you can see that in this kind of topic the target will always be moving, and that this including-future-events rule simply means it's moving slightly more. But here's the rules as they stand: once the topic is featured, if a game is released, or a new article is created, then you'll have 3 months from that date to bring the article to GA or get the article peer reviewed, respectively, and then added to the topic. Which seems to be a reasonable amount of time to me - rst20xx (talk) 19:50, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support: These articles have all been raised to a sufficiently high quality. And even though the unreleased games are not GA status, there are no problems with them. Two are stubs with neutral, completely verified information -- short and sweet. There's virtually nothing to peer review. The other is Guitar Hero World Tour, which is pretty well referenced and well written, with no tags for ongoing problems. If criterion the 3.c peer review requirement is not fulfilled because it requires the formality of opening a peer review request and documenting suggestions and feedback, I'd happily fast-track this on my to-do list and offer constructive feedback to help this topic reach featured status. Randomran (talk) 16:13, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

  I agree on the fast tracking. I'd be more than willing to give a peer review to all three articles. If all the review comments are given within the first couple of days, then the peer reviews will be closed sooner. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:20, 1 August 2008 (UTC))

  I've started the GHWT peer review for this purpose, figuring that is the one that really needs it. --MASEM 16:47, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

  And now both Decades and Metallica are in the PR queue (though again, I doubt those to be a problem). --MASEM 13:08, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

• Conditional support - Guitar Hero III's song list is featured, and all three new game articles are added and peer reviewed, so that should take what, 9 days? and this stays here for at least two weeks? Plenty of time, but get on it! Let me know if you need a peer reviewer :) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 06:52, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
• SupportThough I only helped premote one of these articlesbut I have noticed that these articles are of very high quality and are very impresive. Gears of War 2 16:56, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose Does not satisfy criterion three due to List of songs in Guitar Hero III: Legends of Rock. That list was incorrectly identified as featured in the {{Topicnom}}—I've fixed it. Pagrashtak 15:24, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I was about to comment that the FTC requirements allow for open FLC's, but I re-read and found out I was mistaken, so yes, technically, until the FLC is over with for the GH3 songlist, (irregardless of the 3 future game articles) I can't bring this to FT. If the admins watching this feel its necessary to maintain minimum standards, I would have no problem if they wish to quick-close this FTC. I will say that both the GH:WT article and the GH:Metallica article have been PR'd and issued dealt with, GH:On Tour Decades is awaiting comments, so if there are no problems, after the GH3 songlist is promoted, I can then bring this back along with the three other articles. --MASEM 16:04, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
    • I think Arctic Gnome is keeping this open until these issues are resolved, so if you want to leave it up anyway, that might be easiest... rst20xx (talk) 17:37, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
      • Ok, given this, and that all questioned articles are in the appropriate processes, I have included the 3 articles listed above pending conclusion of their PR. --MASEM 21:50, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
      • And sanity check is that this would make 16 total articles, 5 presently FA/FL, with the one at FLC making it 6, raising the percentage of FA/FLs in the topic from 32% to 37%. --MASEM 21:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose Some articles and lists in the topic are below good articles. Martarius (talk) 09:08, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose Conditional Support. Woah there, sonny... you're really jumping the gun here. First of all, you couldn't wait until the list of songs in Guitar Hero III: Legends of Rock FLC was finished, which is discouraged in the featured topic criteria recommendations. Secondly, you couldn't wait until the three other Guitar Hero games even came out and had sufficient time to become good or featured articles. Realistically, the chances of this featured topic being demoted after these games are released are very high. Let's take a few deep breaths and wait awhile before calling this topic "featured". Xnux the Echidna 15:48, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
  • As I noted above, I did misread the FTC (thinking that it was ok for a FLC to be in progress in the same way a FAC could be as long as it wasn't affecting the 20% requirement), but it's been suggested that this FTC is still open as to resolve that issue. As for the other three games, I've explained above - this is going to be a ever-persistent cycled for the foreseeable future (next two-three years), in that there will always like be a GH future game article open that cannot obtain GA/FA state until the game is released, by which time a new GH game has been announced to be released in the future. (I know it sounds like I'm crystal-balling this, but this is reasonably accurate of the picture that Activision has been painting about the future of the series). Based on Rst20xx's comments above, the solution here is to get the current future games through a PR (which they are progressing right now); when each game is released, we'll need to get it to a minimum GA within three months (a task I don't expect to have a problem with given how these articles are being maintained). This is only current "lull" in releases where it makes sense to bring forward, knowing full well that to keep it an FT we cannot be lax on future articles. --MASEM 15:56, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Personally, I'd like to wait until the Guitar Hero series stops churning out games for a while before making this a featured topic, but I guess you video game Wikipedians are all too eager to get this ongoing stream of video games to featured status. Very well then, if list of songs in Guitar Hero III: Legends of Rock passes its FLC and the other three future games pass their peer reviews, then I will give my support. Otherwise, this topic will have to go back to the Wikipedia landfill of incomplete topics. Xnux the Echidna 16:04, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but the people who have worked so hard on these articles don't want to wait 5, 10, or more years to nominate this topic, so let's give them the time they need to get this done :) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:45, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. 3c states "Items that are ineligible for featured or good article status, (...), must have passed an individual quality audit that included a completed peer review". So currently this fails the criteria as Metallica, Decades and World Tour have not done so. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 06:08, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
• Important note - the FLC for the list of songs for GH3 failed due to lack of input, and though I've resubmitted it, technically that would be extending this issue. If this is considered a problem now, please close out this FTC and I will bring it back once the PR and FLC are completed. --MASEM 16:27, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

---

• On hold - this is taking a long time, but it would take even longer if it was withdrawn only to be resubmitted. So I suggest we consider this On hold until the Peer Reviews and FLC are completed - rst20xx (talk) 16:51, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Something else I think is worth considering: I don't see the song lists as being essential to the topic. Perhaps they could be removed from this nomination, and added in later in a supplementary nomination. The three peer reviews have received feedback and should be closed in little more than a week. So that would shorten the amount of time needed for this nomination. A bit of extra work overall, but something to consider. Any thoughts? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:06, 8 August 2008 (UTC))
    • If the song lists are removed there would be one featured article and no featured lists. That would shorten the nomination time, but not in the way we're hoping. Pagrashtak 18:41, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
      • Whoops, my mistake. Didn't realize they were essential to satisfying the featured content criteria. I guess there isn't much else to do. :-/ (Guyinblack25 ^talk 19:05, 8 August 2008 (UTC))

The list of songs for GH3 is eligible for GA or FA, but hasn't passed. For that reason, I oppose. LuciferMorgan (talk) 16:36, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

• Bookkeeping note - GH On Tour Decade's PR has been completed (marked above); the other two PRs should be automatically closed in the next 48hrs (IIRC). --MASEM 15:26, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Another note: The List of songs in Guitar Hero III: Legends of Rock FLC is faring much better than the previous one and should pass sometime soon. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:41, 18 August 2008 (UTC))
    • Another another note: The FLC has now successfully passed and marked above. --MASEM 17:00, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. - Over 18% of this topic nominated for "Featured topic" status is less than WP:GA-quality, and has not even been through an attempt at a GA Review. Before asserting that Items that are ineligible for featured or good article status - it would be nice for the nominator to demonstrate that they have at least tried to get those articles up to WP:GA status. Cirt (talk) 21:16, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

  Ah, I realise now I should have been more clear in our previous discussion - I was only referring to audited articles of limited subject matter. These 3 articles are audited articles of inherent instability, as they pertain to games which have yet to be released. It has been demonstrated repeatedly that such articles can't pass GA/FL, and this to me makes complete sense - what's the point of making something a GA, if it's only going to change drastically soon? The situation is even worse for "Seasons of" topics, where one season is currently ongoing, and so there is new information every single week. And as a result, I personally would not push for inherently unstable articles to go through GA before being included as limited, as the result is a foregone conclusion, and rightly so - rst20xx (talk) 21:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

  As I have stated before, to not even have tried for WP:GAC/WP:FLC seems to me to be a defeatist way to go. Especially when the amount of material in a featured topic candidate that is of less than WP:GA quality is greater than 18 percent. Cirt (talk) 21:32, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

  Currently, the three articles are about unreleased games, which makes them ineligible for GA and FA on the grounds of stability. After they are released they can go progress up the quality scale. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 21:36, 18 August 2008 (UTC))

  I know that articles on near-future events will not pass GA; they fail the broadness requirements, I've seen the discussions for it; nor do I feel appropriate it is right taking half-an-article to GA which basically means the other half can be added without a GA oversight. I agree that a PR review is good (and all three are finishing theirs right now), but wasting the already-burdened GA time by taking articles I know will fail seems like a poor step. --MASEM 21:39, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

  Yes, there is also the issue that the peer reviews for Guitar Hero World Tour and Guitar Hero: Metallica are both not completed/archived. This should have been a step addressed and completed before nominating for WP:FTC, IMO. Cirt (talk) 21:41, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

  You're absolutely right here, but if you look higher up, there's a line in the nom, and at that point it was put on hold until those peer reviews are completed. There hasn't really been much discussion since then, until now - rst20xx (talk) 21:46, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

  Cirt, you are quite right that this should have been taken care of before nominating. But Masem nominated this topic in good faith after posting a question on WT:FTC. The rules altered from the time he asked his question to the time he nominated, which is why the articles were not reviewed before hand. This is a special case that has remained open to cut back on the administrative tasks or closing this nom and reopening another. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 21:50, 18 August 2008 (UTC))

  (edit conflict, reply to Rst20xx (talk · contribs)) - Ah, quite right, thanks for pointing that out. Incidentally I was also of the opinion that this featured topic candidate discussion, of which I was a significant contributor to the topic itself - should not have been started until all articles had successfully passed WP:GA - though at that time some were still in WP:GAC. Cirt (talk) 21:52, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

  Yes, it is in the recommendations on WP:FT? that such things do not occur. Arctic.gnome, who is in charge around here, tends to put things on hold until these problems are fixed, instead of removing them, because it lessens the administrative tasks. If I were in charge, I would probably rather remove them (though I can see where he's coming from, it is a lot of admin) - rst20xx (talk) 22:00, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

  IMO that type of thing could possibly be grounds for a simple quickfail. Similar to trying to nominate something at WP:GAC with loads of {{citeneeded}} problems - the WP:GAC process even has "quick fail criteria" specifically intended for this type of usage. Cirt (talk) 22:03, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

  I agree, feel free to propose a rule change to make this a quickfail - rst20xx (talk) 22:10, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

  Better if someone does that who is more of a regular to the whole process. Cirt (talk) 22:14, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

  Nonsense, you go for it, and I'll support it - rst20xx (talk) 22:16, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

  ...Oh fine, I'll bring it, but from both of us - rst20xx (talk) 22:17, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

(reset) Done - rst20xx (talk) 22:20, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Cirt (talk) 22:46, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

• Nominating a topic that requires three peer reviews to get around the quality requirement is asking a bit much. While this may technically meet the requirements, it might be better to wait until the series stabilizes a bit before completing all the necessary proofing to get this promoted. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 03:30, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Agree strongly with this comment by Arctic.gnome (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 03:32, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
    • My concern is that there is effectively no point in the near-term future (next few years) where we can expect the series to be stable (no future games in the queue). I agree that topics that have immediate instability should not be passed - say, a season of a TV brought forward before the last few episodes have aired is obviously premature, but also in that case there is a sure-fire bookend to the topic. This is not the case here. I have targeted this period knowing that the most recently releases (Aerosmith and On Tour) were well-covered prior to release and thus knowing the turnaround to GA/FA/FL for those would be simple, and with other editors focused on these articles, have made sure that the future games are in a state that once released the upgrading to GA/FA/FL should be easy. --MASEM 12:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
      • I have to agree with Masem here, and also I will add my support that, based on historical precedent, I have faith that they will be able to meet their retention periods - rst20xx (talk) 13:18, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
• Bookkeeping note: World Tour's PR has closed and is marked above. --MASEM 12:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

• Closed as No Consensus by Mitch32^(UP) 17:28, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Slipknot discography

These are the studio and live albums from Slipknot, similar to both Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Powderfinger albums and Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Wilco discography. Gary King (talk) 17:21, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - sorry, but where's the peer review for All Hope Is Gone (album)? (though it does look to be very well referenced) - rst20xx (talk) 20:18, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - would it be possible to include Slipknot's two demo albums: Mate. Feed. Kill. Repeat. and Slipknot Demo in the topic? MFKR is a GA and Slipknot demo uses as much sourcing as are avalible for the it (it could easily be given a peer review if needed). Blackngold29 20:35, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I think that the demo, if it truly is as well sourced as is possible, should be able to get GA - at any rate it can certainly try. So I'd probably oppose its inclusion until it either passes a GAC, or fails a GAC for this very reason. But yes, I'd agree that the two demos and the three DVDs (one of which is GA) are the two most logical directions for expansion - rst20xx (talk) 22:13, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I like the idea of adding the DVDs too (one is GA, a second is in GAN, the third is similar to Slipknot Demo). I would really like to get Rezter's view on this, (he's been a main contributer to most of these articles) but he has been unable to access WP for a few days due to some unknown reason. Blackngold29 22:53, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose. Um... this is most definitely not complete. Where's Mate. Feed. Kill. Repeat., Slipknot Demo, Welcome to Our Neighborhood, Disasterpieces and Voliminal: Inside the Nine? You also are excluding the singles, which need to be included in this topic since there is not a Slipknot singles discography page. I'm amazed Powderfinger discography and Wilco discography even became featured topics, but this is incomplete even without the singles. Xnux the Echidna 23:14, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

• Why do the singles need to be included? If we're following the precedent set by the two other featured topics, which it seems most WP areas do (too much in fact), then either this one should pass, or the other two should be demoted. It's quite obviously a double standard. I don't care if this gets promoted or not, but I think that all similar topics should be held to a similar level. Blackngold29 23:25, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I feel that the singles should be included because they are just as important to a discography as the albums, and not including them would be cherrypicking. However, it does seem that the scope of the discography topics is merely the albums, so I suppose not including the singles is acceptable. However, it is still incomplete due to the lack of Mate. Feed. Kill. Repeat., Slipknot Demo, Welcome to Our Neighborhood, Disasterpieces and Voliminal: Inside the Nine. Xnux the Echidna 02:27, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Look back at the other discography topics. They don't include DVDs or demos either (actually I'm not sure, to be honest, and haven't checked, whether any of the other bands involved have demos to exclude, but they certainly have DVDs) - rst20xx (talk) 12:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that they should be added. There are two articles (Slipknot Demo and Welcome to Our Neighborhood) which will need peer reviewed; the remainder are already GAs. I have contacted Gary King about their inclusion. Blackngold29 12:49, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

As I said before, there are no rules pertaining to the minimum length of GAs, and I think that if these articles truly are as well sourced as is possible, they should in theory be able to get GA no problem. I'd oppose the inclusion of these articles as non-GAs unless they fail a GAC solely for being inherently too short. Further, I'd point out that the only articles that are currently in FTs as audited articles of limited subject matter are lists, which backs up what I'm saying somewhat. And finally, if you include all 5 articles, then you'd have 2 out of 11 articles as FAs, and hence you'd need another FA for the topic to meet the FT criteria - rst20xx (talk) 13:40, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and as far as I can tell, All Hope Is Gone (album), while looking very heavily referenced, hasn't been peer reviewed, so I'm going to have to oppose until this is dealt with - rst20xx (talk) 13:43, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

• Withdrawn following a request by the nominator - rst20xx (talk) 16:09, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The Florida Everglades

Main page	Articles
Everglades	Everglades National Park Indigenous people of the Everglades region Restoration of the Everglades Draining and development of the Everglades Geography and ecology of the Everglades Marjory Stoneman Douglas

Great work, meets all criteria. Xenus (talk) 10:23, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

• Amazing work, and Support - Get that last one, Everglades, to FA! Incredible. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 00:05, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan is a subarticle of the main article. Why does it not need to be included? Zginder 2008-07-27T12:41Z (UTC)
• Oppose - due to Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan. Also, does Moni3 know about this? Because really, she's done the work and so should be the one who gets to nominate - rst20xx (talk) 09:52, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
• Comment This is definitely a group of some of the finest articles on Wikipedia. Unfortunately, Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan ruins the topic. My suggestion is to redirect it to Restoration of the Everglades, which is a far better article. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 16:19, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
• Was someone going to clue me in that this had been nominated? Or was the vague hook in the water on my talk page supposed to be an announcement? --Moni3 (talk) 16:54, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

And apparently, Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan has been redirected to Restoration of the Everglades. Haste does not help accuracy. Please be careful. --Moni3 (talk) 16:56, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I've undone that redirect, restoring Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan to a separate article. The redirect created a circular content loop (was the main article for the article to which it was redirected). The decision on where this content belongs should likely be left to the article's primary contributors (Moni3) to make sure that the changes make sense; at the very least the article's primary contributors should have been consulted. Karanacs (talk) 17:26, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Strong oppose: It was my goal to bring this topic to feature when it was ready. I do not believe it is at this time. Though Everglades is a GA, I believe it needs several copy edits, primarily by me. I've had some good suggestions from some very helpful editors to cut the article by at least 10%, and I have a cut version sitting in a sandbox. It needs to be read, edited, re-edited, ad nauseum. I started writing four of these articles in late April and have been inundated with Everglades information since then. I was hoping to distance myself from the material to give me some perspective to approach the many edits the Everglades article will require. I have not contributed to Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, and if the majority of editors here feel it will need to be at least at GA, it's not an article I'm looking forward to expanding right now. Furthermore, information in Everglades National Park should be updated and that one also needs another copy edit. There is no rush to feature this topic, and I cannot be forced to do it under time pressure. This nomination is premature. It will be ready when it is ready. --Moni3 (talk) 17:49, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose - The primary contributor to ALL of these articles is User:Moni3, who has stated that she doesn't believe the topic is ready yet.[3] I think the nomination should be withdrawn immediately and the primary contributor should be consulted before a nomination is readied; after all, that person is likely the content and organization expert and would ideally know best whether the articles/topic are in the appropriate state for nomination. Karanacs (talk) 17:26, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I believe that anyone should be able to nominate any topic within reason. Allow editors to be bold and good will come. Zginder 2008-07-31T19:37Z (UTC)

I don't own these articles, clearly. And anyone who is familiar with the sources can work to improve them at any time. However, if someone nominates the topic who has never edited any of the articles and does not show any clear evidence that s/he is familiar with the references and issues of the articles, that is not an ideal situation. Regardless of the BOLD guideline, what is your opinion of the topic if the main article is not ready for FAC? I noticed you did not !vote. --Moni3 (talk) 19:46, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

First, I did not accuse anyone of ownership. Second, the criteria for a featured topic (possibly by design) does not require the nominator or anyone else to know more about the topic than what articles need to be included and which do not. Third, the lead article does not need to be a featured article, in fact, with many topics the real heart of the topic is the other articles and the lead article is just a summary style article that is of inferior quality to everything else. As for what I think of this topic, I have not voted because I have not decided what I think. The only problem I could see with this topic is what I mentioned above "Does Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan need to be included?" If someone makes a case that it does not, I may vote support, if no one does, I may vote oppose. A featured topic does not mean a finished or perfect topic and improvement is still encouraged. Zginder 2008-07-31T20:03Z (UTC)

First, I did not accuse you of accusing me of anything. I don't admit denying that I ever confirmed that. Secondly, err...the nominator doesn't have to know anything about the topic? For real? So... wait... Rarely has a statement on Wikipedia had me so at a loss. Really??? What purpose does that serve? If this is so, then let me be the first to suggest that should be changed. And lastly, there are precious few editors I've found are as seething, frothing, psychotic perfectionists as I am. In some cases, they are a bit more psychotically perfectionist than I. I rather thought featured content was a serendipitous pastime for me to engage in. Featured material requires perfectionism of the debilitating sort. To offer a topic because it's kinda ready will not do. Tolerating it will do even less. Is the object of featured content not to promote the very best the encyclopedia has to offer? Everglades is moons and stars beyond what it was before I got my grubby mits on it, but it is not the best it can be. When it is, and when the proper changes have been made to Everglades National Park, and a learned consensus can be given on the status of the CERP article, that will be the time to nominate the topic. --Moni3 (talk) 20:33, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

• Courtesy oppose It really is poor form to submit someone else's work. Just because the articles are featured does not need they do not need any more work. The author is the best judge of this. Skomorokh 18:16, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. If the primary contributor to these articles isn't happy, then I'm not happy. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:57, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - the opposes are doing fine as place-holders. Moni3 is aware now and I am sure this will succeed once she gives the word, after Everglades is FA. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:38, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Since when did we not promote something because of one persons overzealous interpretation of the criteria? Three editors have opposed because someone else opposed, who in turn opposed because one article is not a FA. Not all articles have to be FAs!!! There is a sensible reason to oppose the nomination, and I accept Rst20xx's oppose, but this is absurd. Can we discuss the merits of this nomination in good faith? Can we stop biting newcomers and again start praising BOLDNESS? Zginder 2008-08-01T01:30Z (UTC)

p.s. I am not criticizing Moni3. I am only criticizing his sympathizers. Zginder 2008-08-01T01:30Z (UTC)

Zginder makes a really good point. I was just bold. I was not familar with that "unwritten rule". If I was, of course I would contact her before the nomination. Are we going to discuss the articles or the nomination? Please don´t throw me into the lions. Xenus (talk) 10:01, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I haven't seen anyone bite newcomers here. I don't believe this opposition is absurd. On the one hand, the topic barely meets the criteria. I see those opposing as regular contributors to the FA process, who have brought their own articles to FA and know what it is like to go through that process. In fact, this is a facetious essay written by an FA regular on breaches of FA etiquette similar to what has transpired here. It is understandable that this has happened because the rules don't state that anything different should. These rules have been amended within the past several months at FAC, and Karanacs has started a discussion to change that, on the talk page for Featured Topics. I'm the only lion here, and not much of one at that. I hope, however, that I have several "really good points" that reflect why this topic is not ready. In fact, a topic not ready should be really the only point. --Moni3 (talk) 12:15, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I have only just recently begun stalking FTC, but it seems to me that there is a simple solution to this issue. Out of respect for the major contributor to all of the articles that make up the proposed topic, the nominator should withdraw this nomination. No matter our individual interpretation of the criteria, this is about common courtesy, for which there does not have to be a rule; it's common sense. I'm sure everyone would rather the nomination not fail needlessly, but either way I'm certain it will be back, with full support and much fawning and awe, in a few month's time. A withdrawal will save us the expended energy. María (habla conmigo) 13:05, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan is part of the topic and nowhere near good or featured article quality. There are other issues with the articles as explained by Moni3 that should be resolved before this is made a featured topic. --Aude (talk) 13:11, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan is not GA+, and needs to be in the topic. Not notifying or asking Moni3 is rude, but is not a requirement, and that the GAs and FAs are not as good as she would like is understandable, but also not enough to oppose. A missing article that isn't high enough quality is. --PresN (talk) 14:12, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
• Withdraw this nomination so that Moni3 can focus her efforts on finishing the aricles and nominating for featured topic when they are all ready. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:24, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
• Note: A discussion has been started at WP:Florida regarding the merging of the CERP article and the inclusion of the CERP article in a potential future Featured Topic. --Moni3 (talk) 15:20, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
• Oh, and also (and I'm mainly saying this for future reference for Moni3), I've just noticed Marjory Stoneman Douglas is included in the topic nom. I (and I think many other editors) would oppose her inclusion if Arthur R. Marshall is not included as well (unless you can argue she is much more notable than he is), but would accept the exclusion of both - rst20xx (talk) 20:12, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. I didn't form the nomination, clearly. Douglas is a journalist whose life certainly was involved the Everglades, but is not core to the topic as the other issues are. Nor would I name the topic "Florida Everglades". Just "Everglades" should suffice. These things seemed immaterial to the entire nomination when I first learned of it. -Moni3 (talk) 20:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• Withdraw. Let the primary contributor make the decision to nominate. This isn't so much an "unwritten rule" as common courtesy. Whiskeydog (talk) 02:28, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

• Note to closer: the nominator has announced its retirement on its user page, and my talk page, citing this discussion to boot. --Moni3 (talk) 14:32, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

  This has gone on too long: will someone please just move this page to archive? I'd do it myself, but I might be accused of "abuse of authority". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:08, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Failed - rst20xx (talk) 16:28, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Note: I really try to avoid using the word "failed" at WP:FAC; this nomination hasn't so much "failed" as it was premature and should be withdrawn so it can be presented when it's fully completed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:30, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

• Just wanted to note that this discussion has apparently caused the nominator, Xenus, to leave. I think the entire nomination should be forgotten, and I think some apologies should be handed out. --Meldshal 21:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm surprised this hasn't been archived. Xenus announced its departure with trumpets on my talk page, blaming me for its decision. I think that was misguided and unfortunate. But I believe that I behaved quite civilly and I do not regret any of my statements in this discussion. If you're suggesting someone apologize to me, I don't believe I am due anything. I think this nomination should be archived. The sooner it's put away the better. --Moni3 (talk) 22:10, 11 August 2008 (UTC)