Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/Failed log/March 2011
Metallica[edit]
4 articles
- Contributor(s): M3tal H3ad, Anger22, Burningclean, Gary king, Igordebraga, me
"The Unforgiven(s)" --Nergaal (talk) 22:25, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah, when it had the list of members the "overview topic" would be flawless. But since it doesn´t exist anymore, it feels "empty, they say" without people from the band itself (and to make it worse, all the band member articles are nowhere near GA level). On the fence with this one. igordebraga ≠ 20:26, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
- Shouldn't List of Metallica demos be included in this? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 09:21, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- No, it is covered in Metallica discography#Demos, therefore would be part of that subtopic. Nergaal (talk) 16:59, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
I can't take a stance one way or the other, but as the "director" of topics it doesn't feel right to me promoting the article without the band members, or at the very least the current ones. I'll leave that up to other commenters but that's just my thought. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 03:43, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- Withdrawing it did not cross my mind that without the FL, the individual members needed to be added, but now that it was mentioned, it is an obvious gap to me. Nergaal (talk) 07:10, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Pennsylvania Route 63[edit]
7 articles
This topic relates to Pennsylvania Route 63 and all its current and former related routes in Southeastern Pennsylvania, which are all GAs. PA 232 is included as it includes the former PA 163. PA 763 redirects to the main PA 63 article as it only existed for a short time. Dough4872 03:14, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
- Support works for me. Meets all requirements, and all are good articles. --AdmrBoltz 03:32, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
- I'd like to be able to support this, but I really can't at this time. I've reviewed the articles, and although they meet the Good Article criteria, I can't consider them "good articles" with a clear conscience. Many paragraphs in many of the articles are excessively long. Four of the articles are missing maps, and the two that have maps don't have captions for them. Five of the articles don't have a reference for the establishment date in the infobox, and PA 363 doesn't have the date in the infobox at all. The topic meets the GTC, but I can't consider this to be one of the best topics on Wikipedia as the articles are currently comprised. – TMF 03:56, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
- Addressed issues. I have placed in a request for maps at WP:USRD/MTF/R. Dough4872 05:00, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
- Support there are a few problems with the article, but nothing that would prevent it from being a GA... CrowzRSA 01:30, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
- Along the same lines as TMF, I have strong concerns about the quality of the individual articles. See my comments, for example, at Talk:Pennsylvania_Route_363#Comments; I spot-checked most of the other articles, and they seem to suffer from the same issues. Juliancolton (talk) 01:41, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose - I wrote the most of the 7th article in this topic, PA 663. Its an old meandering "good article" that I wrote back in 07-08ish. I know its clearly not up to standard, and honestly, as a member of the roads project, the other 6 articles are very half-assed. A Good or Featured Topic is supposed to display the best of Wikipedia to some degree, and I just don't see them here.Mitch32(Erie Railroad Information Hog) 01:47, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- I request withdrawal of this nomination. Dough4872 02:27, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- I live to serve.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:28, 18 March 2011 (UTC)