Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/Good log/March 2009
Second Persian invasion of Greece[edit]
6 articles
I am nominating this as a good topic. The invasion was a very significant event in world history, and the five major battles (including some quite famous ones) are all covered here; minor engagements are covered in the lead article. Five of the GA reviews are recent, four of them in the last two months, so I believe everything to be up-to-speed. MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 10:36, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support I have decided that this covers all of the topics, the only thing else I could think of is some of the people involved. Zginder 2009-03-10T19:09Z (UTC)
- Support Seems to be comprehensive, well done—Chris! ct 01:05, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support - Excellent work. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 23:34, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support, but I recommend covering the biographies of important participants with GA as part of the topic. In my opinion, these are Themistocles, Eurybiades, Pausanias, Leonidas, Mardonius and Xerxes. Most of them have a fairly short biographies, limited to the conflict, so it should be little work bringing these articles to GA. Wandalstouring (talk) 11:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- I think that this is not a bad idea, and Zginder also suggests it. I intended this topic as a purely military collection of articles, and think it qualifies as a Good Topic on that basis alone. However, that doesn't mean that other articles can't be added. I'd certainly give Themistocles, Leonidas, Xerxes and Mardonius a go; I'm not really sure there's enough material to write GA biographies of Eurybiades or Pausanias.MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 13:39, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support - and I guess Battle of Thermopylae in popular culture is a possible addition, but is a subarticle of the Battle of Thermopylae, so can potentially form part of a future subtopic surrounding just that one battle, and hence isn't needed now - rst20xx (talk) 19:35, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Excellent topic.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 16:47, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
- Close with consensus to promote - rst20xx (talk) 12:38, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
U-43 class submarines[edit]
- Major contributors: Bellhalla
The penultimate Good Topic nomination for one of the Austro-Hungarian submarine classes. I believe that all of the requirements are fulfilled. Note: both of the individual submarines had more notable careers as German submarines than as Austro-Hungarian submarines, which is why both are redirects. — Bellhalla (talk) 20:45, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- Minor inconsequential comment - I think it would be better to be honest with the piping and not have it redirect - rst20xx (talk) 00:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- I also agree that they should be pipe links instead.--TRUCO 02:51, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- That's why the note; I wasn't sure how to handle. I've now changed to piped links (rather than the redirects). — Bellhalla (talk) 05:24, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- I also agree that they should be pipe links instead.--TRUCO 02:51, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support - 2 more! rst20xx (talk) 12:30, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Meets WP:WIAFT.--TRUCO 22:42, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support Nergaal (talk) 20:27, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- Comment - should this topic, the U-1 topic and the (currently being promoted) U-27 topic in fact have "(Austria-Hungary)" in their names, to disambiguate themselves from German classes? rst20xx (talk) 18:04, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Bellhalla? rst20xx (talk) 13:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry, I didn't see your question before. I could go either way, really. All of the German sub classes are named in WP as "German Type U nn submarine", so you could argue that there's not really a need for a disambiguation. On the other hand, many sources refer to German class as "U-nn class" mirroring the style in use for the A-H subs. The other factor for these topics, is that there's a big flag proclaiming the nationality of the subject. (Also, as an aside, the German U-1 was a unique submarine and not really a class, per se.) — Bellhalla (talk) 15:00, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- Those are good points, but I noticed that you'd disambiguated some of the pages, eg U-43 class submarine, U-27 class submarine... to me that just about suggests the topics should be disambiguated too - rst20xx (talk) 21:26, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- As I said, I could go either way. — Bellhalla (talk) 22:32, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- Those are good points, but I noticed that you'd disambiguated some of the pages, eg U-43 class submarine, U-27 class submarine... to me that just about suggests the topics should be disambiguated too - rst20xx (talk) 21:26, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry, I didn't see your question before. I could go either way, really. All of the German sub classes are named in WP as "German Type U nn submarine", so you could argue that there's not really a need for a disambiguation. On the other hand, many sources refer to German class as "U-nn class" mirroring the style in use for the A-H subs. The other factor for these topics, is that there's a big flag proclaiming the nationality of the subject. (Also, as an aside, the German U-1 was a unique submarine and not really a class, per se.) — Bellhalla (talk) 15:00, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- Bellhalla? rst20xx (talk) 13:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- Close with consensus to promote - I will disambiguate, where appropriate - rst20xx (talk) 15:28, 7 March 2009 (UTC)