Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/Featured log/May 2012

Good topic candidates: view - edit - history

2002 Atlantic hurricane season

2002 Atlantic hurricane season

12 articles

Tropical Storm Arthur

Tropical Storm Bertha

Tropical Storm Cristobal

Tropical Storm Edouard

Tropical Storm Fay

Hurricane Gustav

Tropical Storm Hanna

Hurricane Isidore

Hurricane Kyle

Hurricane Lili

Timeline

Contributor(s): Hurricanehink, TropicalAnalystwx13, Juliancolton, Coredesat, User:Thegreatdr, TheNobleSith

I realized today that the topic passes all of the criteria for featured topic, so I figured I'd nominate it, seeing as I was responsible for a few of the articles. As you can see, there have been a lot of people working on the topic. I hope you like it! --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:50, 15 April 2012

• Question could you please remind me again why your project thinks that tropical storms that have minimal damage and one indirect causalities deserve their own WP article? I am getting more and more convinced that you guys get to GA too many articles that don't really deserve any more than some extended entry in the season article/list. Nergaal (talk) 22:16, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
  • The information on Arthur and Cristobal would make the section in the season article a bit long. I generally agree with merging low-impact storm articles, including in the case of Arthur or Cristobal. However, seeing as merging them wouldn't affect whether it's FT or not, is that a problem for this nomination? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:17, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
    • Technically I am not opposing, but I cannot support a topic which has articles that should be technically AfDed. Nergaal (talk) 03:15, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
      • Why should they be AFD'd? We don't usually AFD articles in the project, we merge them :P. Anyway, Arthur and Cristobal are respectable article that may look bloated in their season article. And I personally feel that I'd rather have a short to medium sized article (which would likely contain more information) than a long season section. WP is not paper. In answer to your first question, if you want to see a good example about why we keep such things, see Talk:Tropical Storm Fabian (1991) or Talk:Tropical Storm Don (2011) (the former is now part of an FT). FYI Nergaal, we have merged quite a bit of articles the past 6 months or so. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 14:52, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
        • To be fair, I would rather have a long season section actually, considering people are more likely to read the whole season article than an individual article. But, as YE said, the articles shouldn't be deleted but rather merged, considering there would be useful content to carry over. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:16, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
          • • I find it easier to read an article instead of a section. But as Hink said, when a topic is a GTC/FTC/GT/FT, it is best to leave the somewhat borderline articles alone. Either way, I support this topic as an FT. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 22:03, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
• As the one who "saved" the main article from an FA downgrade after the List of Storms article was merged, I support--12george1 (talk) 20:33, 19 April 2012 (UTC)--12george1 (talk) 20:33, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
• Comment the book report shows several cleanup tag being present in those articles. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 01:34, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
  • All should be fixed! --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:00, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

• Comment—I'm leaning to support; but the parent article still has a disambiguation needed tag. I'd also be tempted to list the timeline before any of the individual storms but that's entirely aesthetic. GRAPPLE X 12:16, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Alright, dab fixed. And the timeline position is the same as other featured topics (such as 2006 Atlantic hurricane season). ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:17, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
    • Fair enough, then. Support. GRAPPLE X 13:24, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
• Comment Many many deadlinks remain present in several articles. See the "ext links" tool in the book reports. I tagged some of the dead links. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 04:05, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Update, it's possible that most of those are due to server maintenance at the NCDC. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 04:07, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Yea, they've been working on that for the past few weeks. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:43, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I hate to rush, but is there any progress on this? TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 23:06, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

• Closed with consensus to promote as featured topic. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 02:50, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Königsberg class cruisers (1915)

Königsberg class cruisers

5 articles

SMS Königsberg (1915)

SMS Karlsruhe (1916)

SMS Emden (1916)

SMS Nürnberg (1916)

Another class of light cruisers, these four ships were the second to last class of cruisers built by the German navy before the end of World War I. Due to their late completion, they had relatively short service careers, though they did see some action during Operation Albion and the Second Battle of Heligoland Bight in 1917. Parsecboy (talk) 00:36, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Looks grand to me, don't see any issues with the articles themselves or with the topic as a whole. GRAPPLE X 00:58, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Another good topic. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:27, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:07, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

• Promoted. GRAPPLE X 22:38, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Group 12 elements

Group 12 elements

5 articles

Zinc

Cadmium

Mercury

Copernicium

Contributor(s): mav, Stone, Nergaal, Double sharp, R8R Gtrs, Materialscientist, WP Elements

I feel this topic meets the good topic criteria as it is very comprehensive and its articles are all of high quality. Also, this topic would be the second GT for WikiProject Elements. Double sharp (talk) 02:44, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: Mercury has an unresolved NPOV tag; Copernicium has three citation needed tags (though one is in the lead so it might not be needed if it's supported later on). GRAPPLE X 02:52, 6 April 2012 (UTC) Support. GRAPPLE X 10:23, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support, although unsure if there's a reference for ^285bCn and clueless like Derpy Hooves at the reason for the NPOV tag at Hg. FreywaParcly Taxel
  20% Cooler 05:44, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
  • This is the greatest comment ever on Wikipedia.--Gen. Quon (talk) 19:49, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support once the NPOV tag on mercury has been resolved. Until then, oppose.StringTheory¹¹ 18:34, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
  • The NPOV tag on mercury has been resolved. Double sharp (talk) 06:23, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support--topic meets the criteria. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:26, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
• Comment Several deadlinks are present in most of these articles. Check with the 'ext links' tool of the book reports for greater detail. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:54, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
  • All the dead links have been fixed. Double sharp (talk) 03:23, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support as long as the inline cleanup tags in Copernicium are resolved. —Andrew_stalk 00:05, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support: Once issues have been fixedCompletely.--Gen. Quon (talk) 19:49, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
  • The inline cleanup tags have been fixed by Nergaal. Double sharp (talk) 06:32, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

• Promoted. GRAPPLE X 20:24, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Kolberg class cruisers

Kolberg class cruisers

5 articles

SMS Kolberg

SMS Cöln (1909)

SMS Mainz

SMS Augsburg

Another class of German light cruisers, all saw significant action during WWI, including two that were sunk at the Battle of Heligoland Bight in the first weeks of the war. This is another component of this topic, which will hopefully complete a Cruisers of Germany topic that combines the armored cruisers, heavy cruisers, and the protected cruisers. Parsecboy (talk) 13:13, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Another solid entry from an editor familiar with the process; I see no problem supporting. GRAPPLE X 16:19, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
• Comment, several of these articles cite Germany's high sea fleet in the World War. That book is available (freely) online at http://richthofen.com/scheer/ . It might be good to update the references with a link to the online version. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:02, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Good idea, I have added the link to the articles that use the book. Parsecboy (talk) 17:34, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Meets criteria. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:08, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:08, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. I'm wondering if it may be better to just wait for the light cruiser GT, rather than making a bunch of smaller topics and having to merge them all later on. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 05:10, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
  • To be honest, the main topic won't be completed for a long time (and due to my increasingly busy schedule in grad school, I don't know if it ever will). Parsecboy (talk) 11:49, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Okay; not a problem, just checking on that since it looked like there was good progress on it so far. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:40, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

• Promoted. GRAPPLE X 18:52, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Heavy cruisers of Germany

Heavy cruisers of Germany

13 articles

Deutschland-class cruiser

Deutschland

Admiral Scheer

Admiral Graf Spee

D class cruiser

P class cruiser

Admiral Hipper-class cruiser

Admiral Hipper

Blücher

Prinz Eugen

Seydlitz

Lützow

Another class of German warships is complete, at least as far as a GT is concerned. This one has legs for an eventual upgrade to FT, but the articles are pretty far down on the FAC queue (I'm only halfway to finishing the original project, and I don't exactly have the free time to run FACs every month). In any case, this topic includes the Deutschland class ships, which were originally classified as panzerschiffe (armored ships) and commonly called "pocket battleships", but were actually just over-armed heavy cruisers, something the Germans themselves realized in 1940, when they reclassified the remaining two ships as heavy cruisers. There were two designs for follow-on panzerschiffe, neither of which were completed, and the five Admiral Hippers, two of which were originally ordered as light cruisers. Those two ships were reordered as heavy cruisers, but were never completed. The last ship, Lützow was sold to the USSR and actually fired on advancing German troops during Barbarossa. Parsecboy (talk) 11:13, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

• Note - Wikipedia:Featured topics/Admiral Hipper class cruisers will have to be merged in once this is promoted. There is no corresponding GT for the Deutschland class. Parsecboy (talk) 11:20, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support - However, perhaps the current Admiral Hipper topic could just be included as a subtopic (as seen here) rather than being merged in and dropped. I'd support either way as it still represents the same scope. GRAPPLE X 18:39, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support. I see no need for a subtopic in this case. The merged topic is complete and of manageable size. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:22, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

• Comment German cruiser Admiral Scheer has some ambiguous links. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:50, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Fixed - thanks for pointing those out. Parsecboy (talk) 11:39, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

• Comment, as with the other topic above, I believe several of these articles cite Germany's high sea fleet in the World War. That book is available (freely) online at http://richthofen.com/scheer/ . It might be good to update the references with a link to the online version. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 04:57, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
  • I don't know that they do - these are all post-WWI designs (and all were built or proposed after Scheer died, incidentally). Parsecboy (talk) 11:02, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

My bad then, must have been some other topic I was thinking of. I just might do a general search for articles citing that book and post the result at WP:SHIP.Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:05, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

• Support--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:06, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Merge of the other topic is done, will promote in the next day or two. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 05:05, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

• Closed with consensus to promote as good topic. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 05:10, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Music of the Sun

Music of the Sun

3 articles

"Pon de Replay"

"If It's Lovin' that You Want"

Contributor(s): Calvin999

I believe that all three article meet the criteria to become a Good Topic. They aren't huge but they cover all aspects that is available. Everything is properly sourced. --Aaron • ^{You Da One} 13:41, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

• Sorry but oppose. The tour should be a GA. Nergaal (talk) 17:56, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

  " Items that are ineligible for featured article, featured list or good article status, either due to their limited subject matter (in the case of lists only) or due to inherent instability (in the case of either articles or lists), must have passed an individual quality audit that included a completed peer review, with all important problems fixed." Thanks for your comment, but your reason of what should be a GA contradicts the criteria. Rihanna: Live in Concert Tour has been peer reviewed with the issues fixed. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 19:19, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

  See Wikipedia:Good_articles/Arts#Music_businesses_and_events for a complete list of reasons why I think that is not true. Nergaal (talk) 21:23, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

  Rihanna: Live in Concert Tour has no other info. It won't ever become more than what it currently is. That link you gave me shows big tours. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 21:32, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

  Then I suggest the article be merged into the album's article. Roc Tha Block Tour doesn't even relate to Rihanna: Live in Concert Tour at all. — Status {^talk_contribs 22:47, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

  Scratch that, the tour isn't even from this era. If it is removed from here I support it as a good topic. — Status {^talk_contribs 22:59, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

• Honestly, I don't think the concert tour can become a GA any time soon - besides, what most directly pertains to an album topic is the album and its singles, not the tour. For that reason, I support this nomination. Toa Nidhiki05 01:44, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• Neutral The line "Items that are ineligible for featured article, featured list or good article status ... due to their limited subject matter..." is a clause that contains, as you said, a "must have passed an individual quality audit that included a completed peer review", which is true. The intention for that point is to have FTs like Wikipedia:Featured topics/Thatgamecompany. Journey hasn't been released and therefore can't be a good article. If you claim that there is no information about the tour, that is weird. Perhaps there is no (more) online information, but offline may exist. It was a three-country concert and somebody must have attended it. I'm not supporting it as the tour article currently exists, but I'm neither opposing it as the tour had a correct PR. You have to decide if merge/delete/keep the Rihanna tour is the correct. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 06:17, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

  As Status said, the tour actually supported her second album A Girl like Me (Rihanna album), so it's not really apart of the Music of the Sun era. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 12:04, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

  Similar to Who's That Girl World Tour (which promotes True Blue and Who's That Girl) and The Labyrinth (tour) (Spirt and Echo), this tour promoted both albums (according to the article). Even if it wasn't its era, it is part of the promotion of the album. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 19:58, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

  The point is thought, this tour is incapable of becoming a GA. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 13:58, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments:

• "Pon de Replay" is 35 Kb while "If It's Lovin' that You Want" is 25 Kb. The former has a one-para lead while the latter has a two-paras lead. That needs to be fixed right now. Plus, the former's lead is quite dry (if I may say so).

  Both have been copy-edited and are of the same length now. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• Very good. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 13:55, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• Why are the background in all three articles so identical word-to-word?

  Because they talk about the same thing. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

  But that's very weird. How can they all have the same background? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 13:55, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

  Why would they have different ones? Lol. All went through the same development and conception. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

  So that means, if eight songs were released, you would have copy-pasted the same thing in eight song articles? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 14:00, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

  No, because they would have different backgrounds, or might not have the same amount. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• But these three are nearly carbon-copies. They all even have the same picture and everything else. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 14:03, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

How does this relate to both songs?

Prior to signing a record deal with Def Jam Recordings, Rihanna was discovered in her home country of Barbados by American record producer Evan Rogers.[3] The pair met in December 2003 through mutual friends of Rihanna's and Rogers wife, whilst the couple was on vacation in Barbados, because of how Rihanna's friend had told Rogers wife how the aspiring singer was always singing and performing.[3] After meeting for the first time, Rogers asked Rihanna and her two friends to come to his hotel room to audition for him, where she performed renditions of Destiny's Child's "Emotion" and Mariah Carey's "Hero".[3] Rogers was so impressed with Rihanna's renditions that it prompted him to fly the singer to New York, where she was accompanied by her mother, Monica, to record some demo tapes which could be sent to record labels.[2][3] Production of the demo tapes took about year, due to Rihanna only being able to record during school holidays.[2] At the age of 16, Rihanna was signed to Rogers and Carl Sturken's production company, Syndicated Rhythm Productions, where she was given her own lawyer and manager, before the complete demo tape was distributed to various record labels around the world in late 2004.[2] The first to respond to the demo tape was Jay-Z, who had recently been appointed as president and CEO of Def Jam Recordings, where Rihanna auditioned for him and music executive L.A. Reid, in his office.[2][4] Looking back on the audition and meeting Jay-Z, Rihanna explained during an interview how she felt before walking into the room, saying: "That's when I really got nervous ... I was like: 'Oh God, he's right there, I can't look, I can't look, I can't look!' I remember being extremely quiet. I was very shy. I was cold the entire time. I had butterflies. I'm sitting across from Jay-Z. Like, Jay-Zee. I was star-struck."[2]

If you give me a very good explanation, it will be okay. Bu I don't see how this information is related to the songs. In fact, this is just one example. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 14:13, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• How does the Whitney Houston picture add anything to each song articles?

  If a person is mentioned in the article, a picture is allowed to stay. The picture demonstrates who Rihanna covered during her audition. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

  In the song articles as well? In fact, that was my original question? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 13:55, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

  Yes Aaron • ^{You Da One}

  Since this is directly related to the background, I will reply above. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 14:00, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

The references look good. That's all (for now). Jivesh1205 (Talk) 12:56, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I am now satisfied with "If It's Lovin' that You Want". I will comment of PDR again. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 14:01, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Coming to PDR,

Prior to signing a record deal with Def Jam Recordings, Rihanna was discovered in her home country of Barbados by American record producer Evan Rogers.[3] The pair met in December 2003 through mutual friends of Rihanna's and Rogers wife, whilst the couple was on vacation in Barbados, because of how Rihanna's friend had told Rogers wife how the aspiring singer was always singing and performing.[3] After meeting for the first time, Rogers asked Rihanna and her two friends to come to his hotel room to audition for him, where she performed renditions of Destiny's Child's "Emotion" and Mariah Carey's "Hero".[3] Rogers was so impressed with Rihanna's renditions that it prompted him to fly the singer to New York,

Why does the reader need to know about this? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 14:09, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Not removing. It explains how they met and Rogers later wrote and produced Pon de Replay. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 14:20, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Why do we need to know where she was discovered? Where they met? The year? Roger's wife? The couple was on vacation? Rihanna and her two friends to come to his hotel room? For an audition? Performed renditions of A, B, C, ... Z? Why? All that should be in the album and bio page only. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 14:25, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. That's what background info is. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 14:26, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Background about what? About how she was discovered? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 14:28, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

He discovered her, she auditioned for him, he signed her to his production company, where he wrote and produced PdR for her, which became her debut single. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 14:29, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I still don't see where you are trying to get. Rogers was so impressed with Rihanna's renditions that it prompted him to fly the singer to New York, where she was accompanied by her mother, Monica, to record some demo tapes which could be sent to record labels.[2][3] Production of the demo tapes took about year, due to Rihanna only being able to record during school holidays.[2]- What does all that mean? Simple, this information is about how she was signed by a label, not about the song or any other song. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 14:34, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, production of the demo tapes which included Pon de Replay. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 14:35, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Write and make it clear then. And removed all the story about their meeting and socialization. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 14:37, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I propose this.

Prior to signing a record deal with Def Jam Recordings, Rihanna was discovered in her home country of Barbados by American record producer Evan Rogers, who made the necessary arrangements for her to fly to New York, where she recorded some demo tapes to be sent to record labels.[2][3] At the age of 16, Rihanna was signed to Rogers and Carl Sturken's production company, Syndicated Rhythm Productions before the complete demo tape of "Pon de Replay" was distributed to various record labels in late 2004.[2] The first to respond to the demo tape was Jay-Z, who had recently been appointed as president and CEO of Def Jam Recordings, where Rihanna auditioned for him and music executive L.A. Reid, in his office.[2][4] Looking back on the audition and meeting Jay-Z, Rihanna explained during an interview how she felt before walking into the room, saying: "That's when I really got nervous ... I was like: 'Oh God, he's right there, I can't look, I can't look, I can't look!' I remember being extremely quiet. I was very shy. I was cold the entire time. I had butterflies. I'm sitting across from Jay-Z. Like, Jay-Zee. I was star-struck." During the audition, Rihanna performed Whitney Houston's cover of "For the Love of You", "Pon de Replay" and "The Last Time", the latter two of which would go on to be included on her debut album, Music of the Sun.[2] Initially, Jay-Z was skeptical about signing Rihanna, because he felt "Pon de Replay" was too big for her, saying "when a song is that big, it's hard [for a new artist] to come back from. I don't sign songs, I sign artists".[5]

I believe this is fine and most importantly, not fancrufty. But I have to ask something with respect to what is in bold. Was that song originally covered by Whitney Houston? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 15:04, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

• I have made the necessary changes. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 15:16, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

<blocquote> During the audition, Rihanna performed Whitney Houston's cover of "For the Love of You", "Pon de Replay" and "The Last Time", the latter two of which would go on to be included on her debut album, Music of the Sun.[2] Initially, Jay-Z was skeptical about signing Rihanna, because he felt "Pon de Replay" was too big for her, saying "when a song is that big, it's hard [for a new artist] to come back from. I don't sign songs, I sign artists".[5] The audition resulted in Rihanna signing a six album record deal with Def Jam Recordings in February 2005, on the same day of the audition, with Jay-Z saying "There's only two ways out. Out the door after you sign this deal. Or through this window ...", meaning that he was not going to let her leave without signing a record deal.[2] After signing with Def Jam Recordings, Rihanna canceled multiple other meetings with record labels and relocated herself from Barbados to New York to live with The Rogers.[6] </blocquote>

And this? Why all this in a song article? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 14:09, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Removed the bold text. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 14:20, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

:Now leaning to support Let me take a last look. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 15:49, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support Jivesh1205 (Talk) 15:38, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment The image has to be changed to something from 2005-06, like this one. I agree with Jivesh about that background info. If you insist on keeping it, trim it down. It's good in "Pon de Replay", but it doesn't really make much sense to include it in "Lovin'". And I really don't think the Whitney picture adds anything to the song articles. She just sang one her songs. Big whoop. Plus, how important is her mother's name, Monica, here, and who cares what Rihanna thought to herself before entering a room? Pancake (talk) 20:48, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

  I have changed the GT box picture. I have removed the Background section from If It's Lovin' and re-worked the article a bit. The Whitney pictures stays; if a person is mentioned, the picture is allowed to be there. And I have removed Monica. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 13:54, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd prefer if an extra comment or two, ideally from a non-music person, could take a look at the topic just so we can get a clear consensus one way or the other. Right now I don't feel comfortable promoting or not promoting it. I'll try to find someone if no one else comments in a couple days. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 02:37, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - It does seem that information on the tour is pretty thin, but I'd be more comfortable with excluding it from the topic if there was some evidence that editors have searched thoroughly. At the moment, there has been no discussion of the article on the talk page, and only one person commented on the peer review. Parsecboy (talk) 12:47, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

• Because there is nothing to expand with. Trust me I've looked. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 15:52, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

• This was a tough one, I had to look through it for a while and get an outside opinion as well. Had others expressed concern about the tour article this would perhaps have been a different outcome, but nearly everyone seems fine with the topic as is, now that the articles themselves have been cleaned up as well. Closed with consensus to promote as good topic. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:50, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

  Thanks :) Aaron • ^{You Da One} 15:52, 6 May 2012 (UTC)