Overview of Lorde, including biography, discography, list of songs recorded and list of awards/nominations received --HĐ (talk) 10:30, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support seems complete. Nergaal (talk) 02:24, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - More or less where my first FT was when it was promoted. Excellent work. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:54, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great collection of articles, fully support. Azealia911talk 13:53, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
After a multi-year collaboration between several editors, WP:Video games and WP:SEGA are proud to nominate the Sega video game consoles topic, which covers every console ever made by Sega, as described in the lead list. Sega Genesis already has a featured subtopic; in addition to Sega Genesis itself two other articles overlap due to their odd status as consoles with their own game libraries that were also expansions on the Genesis hardware. The collaborators on this project were: Red Phoenix for the SG-1000, Master System, Sega Genesis, Sega CD, Sega 32X, Sega Saturn, Sega Pico, Sega Game Gear, Sega Nomad, and Dreamcast; Indrian for Sega Genesis; SexyKick for Sega Genesis; TheTimesAreAChanging for Sega Saturn; and me (PresN) for the list of consoles. Everyone, of course, did some work on lots of different articles, including some incredibly thorough reviews. Everything should be good to go, so thanks for reviewing! --PresN 22:27, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support but please create an introductory paragraph for the topic. As an FT this could possibly be featured on the main page so an intro would be highly desirable. Nergaal (talk) 16:41, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It has one? The nomination template asks for one, and noincludes it so it doesn't clutter up WP:FLC, but you can see it on this page. --PresN 16:58, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support, looks good. --JDC808♫ 16:54, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Good work, all around. The topic is complete, per the list, though I think it makes more sense to list the consoles either together and chronologically or split into separate columns for home/handheld, then sorted chronologically. What a prize to have this topic finished. czar⨹ 01:26, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Modified it to be in chrono order; can't split it into home/handheld since there's only 2 handhelds. --PresN 19:22, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Excellent work. I've reviewed several of these myself. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:53, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Closed with a consensus to promote to Featured Topic. - GamerPro64 02:47, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A workshop session with the Australian Paralympic Committee before the 2012 London Games led to creation of a series of articles on Paralympic classification. I was sceptical about them, but it turns out that they were right and I was wrong; the classification articles proved more popular than the articles on sports or athletes, as people turned to the Wikipedia for explanation of what they were seeing during the Games. Articles on Winter Sports classification were created later in 2012, and now they form a new Good Topic. Because Para-alpine and Para-Nordic share classifications, this topic has an unusual (but far from unique) double-barrelled lead. -- Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:12, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Small note, a reference in LW12 is displaying a reference date error. ResMar 15:35, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is a really tricky topic to follow. I strongly suggest creating a short para to present/introduce the topic as per this. Nergaal (talk) 05:01, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have nowhere to put it until it becomes a good topic, but it would read something like this:
Para-alpine skiing classification and Para-Nordic skiing classification use a common classification system for disability skiing sports. The classification system is designed to ensure fair competition between skiers with different types of disabilities. They are grouped into three general types: standing, blind and sitting. The first classification systems for skiing were developed in Scandinavia in the 1960s, with early systems designed for skiers with amputations. As special equipment was developed, it was extended to allow participation by skiers with spinal cord injuries. The goal of the early classification systems was functional but ended up being medical classification systems. In more recent times the classification system has evolved to become an evidence-based system as opposed to a performance-based system so as not to punish elite athletes whose performance makes them appear in a higher class alongside competitors who train less. The classifications for skiing are LW1, LW2, LW3, LW4, LW5/7, LW6/8, and LW9, where LW stands for Locomotor Winter. There are also three sit-ski classifications: LW10, LW11 and LW12, and three classifications for blind athletes: B1, B2 and B3.
This does not explain how the 10+ categories are linked together. To non-experts the topic appears as a random collection of letters and numbers. Nergaal (talk) 00:22, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yes, but the meanings of the classifications are the subject of the articles. Usually, the non-expert sees the event at the Winter Paralympics on TV, and uses the Wikipedia to find out more about what the classifications mean. I've added a bit more to the text. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:53, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seems to pass all GT criteria. Good work.--ɱ(talk · vbm) 18:35, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delegate Comment - There's been only been three separate commentators on this nomination with only one voting for a Support. There needs to be more discussion made for a consensus. GamerPro64 14:23, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support All the articles in the field are of Ga status. This seems like a Good Topic to me. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 02:06, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose inclusion of more than one sport. Right now you have nordic and alpine skiing, and snowboarding. For now I would suggest just do nordic skiing as a lead article, then just get an article titled "Winter Paralympic Games classifications" which would include the other two, PLUS the other four or so sports. The structure is getting messy by adding more than one sport. Also, the intro paragraph should kinda focus on how up to ~4 only legs are covered, 5-8 arms, and B are vision ones. Nergaal (talk) 22:27, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As explained in the snowboarding article, snowboarding is considered alpine skiing by the IOC and IPC. The double lead article is because Para-Alpine and Para-Nordic share the same classifications. The next article in the hierarchy is Disability sport classification, of which this is a subtopic. I don't see the need for an intro paragraph at all; none of my other Good Topics have one. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:23, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate you working with the reviewers. Nergaal (talk) 02:44, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support with single lead article- I'd rather see the lead article as Para-alpine skiing classification, with Para-nordic skiing classification as one of the child articles like snowboarding. I'd support either way, though. I've added your intro paragraph onto this page the way the nominations template now puts it when you make a new nomination; the closer will put it on the actual topic page when they promote. Could you add a bit about snowboarding being a subcat of alpine skiing, though? --PresN 19:28, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I don't mind making Para-nordic one of the child articles like snowboarding. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:11, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Closed with a consensus to promote to Good Topic. And might I add, long over due. Looking at what has been discussed, and looking specifically over Nergaal's oppose, as long as snowboarding is considered alpine skiing by the IOC and IPC, there's no reason why it shouldn't be in this topic. I am also going along with PresN's suggestion to have a single lead article, endorsed by the nominator, Hawkeye7.--十八 08:17, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
All articles are of Good or Featured status and meet all other GT criteria. I chose these articles as they are the only notable topics related to Briarcliff Manor. I created eight of these articles and improved the other ten, all of which were start- or stub- class when I first edited them. I later became a member of the Briarcliff Manor-Scarborough Historical Society in order to coordinate efforts; their photographs, maps, and other archives have been very helpful, and my internet research has likewise been of good use to them.--ɱ(talk · vbm) 00:25, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest creating a short para to introduce the topic as per this. Nergaal (talk) 00:24, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I was asked to comment here via a review exchange at the reward board. I've never commented on a good topic nominee before, and was previously not very familiar with how it worked, though having looked at the criteria and this list of articles I am satisfied that each of the good topic criteria has been met. Well done. Freikorp (talk) 11:58, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This is my first FT comment, but from what I see, all the articles in this topic are good or featured articles. Great work! Epic Genius (talk) 23:46, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support All of the topics in this category are at least GA class. The high classes of the articles should make this topic a good topic. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 23:22, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Pace University is not included. Nergaal (talk) 22:30, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Quite frankly, you are ridiculous to completely oppose such a nomination just because you think it's missing a single article. How about suggesting it instead? Anyway, I've been a village resident for most of my life, so I can tell you that Pace University has very little impact or significance in Briarcliff. Any notable aspects are already covered in the article Briarcliff College. Besides, the article on Pace University is far too oriented towards its New York City and Pleasantville campuses; the Briarcliff one is absolutely tiny and doesn't even have a single classroom. Pace University has no place on this list.--ɱ(talk · vbm) 04:37, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, that is the main reason for FTC, to make sure that the topics include all the relevant articles. Looking more closely though, whatever PU does in the cillage is covered by the college article. Support. Nergaal (talk) 02:51, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Closed with a consensus to promote to Good Topic.--十八 22:51, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
