Everything got to GA status in the past few months, so they're recent GA's that I believe to be in good shape. Hope you like it! --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:09, 26 August 2013 (UTC) --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:09, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks good; complete topic. Adabow (talk) 05:35, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Happy to give my support as well. Thanks for bringing both articles up to a high standard of quality. Lemurbaby (talk) 13:50, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Closed with a consensus to promote to Good Topic. - GamerPro64 02:28, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This topic comprises the eight coastal defense ships built by Germany, all in the 1880s. They were quickly superseded by more powerful ocean-going battleships such as the Brandenburg class, and so no further examples of the type were built. Parsecboy (talk) 15:14, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Complete topic. Adabow (talk) 21:31, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A topic encompassing Beyoncé's second studio album, including songs, tour and related releases. Currently articles are listed in the order: singles (in order of release), other singles (eg soundtrack singles), other songs, related releases. Feel free to suggest a better order if you can think of one. --Adabow (talk) 22:14, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Amazing that not only you created (Good) articles on every song, not just the singles, but every topic tangent to the album. igordebraga≠ 05:22, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow! What a huge amount of articles. Really good ones too. I support this, although I do think you can condense this down, I mean what's the use of Dreamgirls soundtrack songs and songs like Check on It when they were just included as bonuses and all? I think the original tracklist and tour (and maybe the live) should be a part of the topic. --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 14:58, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But at least one single (Beautiful Liar) is from the Deluxe edition, Check On It is from the original tracklist... if the nominator doesn't mind, I changed the order of the articles above (normal tracks, extra tracks, related articles). igordebraga≠ 17:58, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
igordebraga, that's fine with me. I rearranged some to the correct order by tracklistings (I'm assuming that's the order you were after). The layout looks quite unbalanced now, though. WonderBoy1998, every track that was on the album needs to be in the topic for it to be considered complete. The EP and video album were components of the deluxe edition that were also sold separately; while summarised in the main B'Day article, they are discussed more comprehensively in their own articles, and therefore also need to be included. Adabow (talk) 02:52, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's just to demonstrate what fills on each category during the nomination. If it passes you can return to the 7-7-7 split. igordebraga≠ 12:06, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I still think the number of articles included here is too large. I personally think what should be included is the tracklist of the original album, the deluxe/reissue version songs, and the tour (and maybe live album). --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 13:39, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The title alone of B'Day Anthology Video Album should indicate that it is inherently part of the B'Day topic. Furthermore, both it and Irreemplazable were merely parts of the deluxe edition of the album, sold separately. It seems like we'll have to agree to disagree though... Adabow (talk) 05:35, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the Anthology album should be included. Even Irreemplazable is fine here, but I'm not sure about songs like Listen, Check On It, Hollywood, and all. Yes they were included on the deluxe edition but they weren't solely recorded for it, such as in the case of Beautiful Liar. --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 12:46, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why you list Check On It again? It dates from before the album, but is on the regular tracklist (as is every article on the leftmost column). igordebraga≠ 17:37, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I guess you're right, we would have to agree to disagree. --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 01:05, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. An extraordinary topic! Amazing job to all those involved! You all should be very proud of yourselves! — Status (talk · contribs) 02:05, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support—this is as complete as can be. Another great effort from the Beyoncé WikiProject. —WP:PENGUIN·[ TALK ] 10:46, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This topic comprises all of the battleships built or planned by Spain in the 20th century, the number of which was limited greatly by Spain's poor economic situation. Some might question the omission of Pelayo since she was called a battleship at the time, but this is a list of ships we would today classify as battleships, and she more accurately belongs to the period of ironclads. Parsecboy (talk) 14:16, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Complete topic. I would suggest moving the lead article to chop off the confusing "List of" prefix. Adabow (talk) 22:33, 24 August 2013 (UTC)si[reply]
If you like this, then you'll probably like the fact that I just got ahold of Fernandez, Mitiuckov, and Crawford's rather good Warship International article on the España-class, which probably has enough information to get the class article to FA. Parsecboy (talk) 17:57, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
.svg){kind=small}