Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/Good log/February 2009

Mauritius campaign of 1809–1811

11 articles

Action of 31 May 1809

Raid on Saint-Paul

Action of 18 November 1809

Action of 3 July 1810

Invasion of Île Bonaparte

Battle of Grand Port

Action of 13 September 1810

Action of 18 September 1810

Invasion of Île de France

Battle of Tamatave

Hi, this is a GTC which I have been working at since September. It includes all major actions of this campaign at GA standard.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:14, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support - fantastic topic that I can see you've worked very hard on. Would Action of 6 April 1809 be a possible addition? It was fought off the north coast of Spain, but directly relates to the rest of the campaign - rst20xx (talk) 07:48, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support. April 1809 might possibly be an addition, but I would be more inclined to imclude it in a future category on the Blockade of Brest rather than this one.--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:21, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note - I think I reviewed about half of these articles for GA, but I'd like to Support anyway; they're a fascinating set of articles about a campaign that more should be known about. Skinny87 (talk) 08:31, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fantastic work, Jacky. Meets all the requirements. — Bellhalla (talk) 20:53, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Meets WP:WIAFT.--TRU CO 02:50, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nergaal (talk) 18:13, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Close with consensus to promote - rst20xx (talk) 19:30, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to everyone for the comments and supports.--Jackyd101 (talk) 20:53, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

U-27 class submarines

U-27 class submarines

9 articles

SM U-27

SM U-28

SM U-29

SM U-30

SM U-31

SM U-32

SM U-40

SM U-41

Major contributors: Bellhalla

The latest Good Topic nomination for an Austro-Hungarian submarine class. I believe that all of the requirements are fulfilled. — Bellhalla (talk) 22:04, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support - excellent work that I have watched grow over the last few months.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:04, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - so let me get this straight. With this nom and the ones already passed, you'll have done sub nos 1-12, 20-23, 27-32 and 40-41. U-13 seems to be nonexistant and U-14 is in a class of its own so basically done. Wait hang on a sec... are there two U-10s and two U-11s? rst20xx (talk) 23:28, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There are five U-10 class subs, one + the class page are GA now (two more are at GAN, with two more to follow in the next day or so). My current plot to take over GTC can be seen here… Mwa-ha-ha-ha… — Bellhalla (talk) 00:55, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - No I mean, what about SM U-69 and SM U-70? Are they not U-10 and U-11 respectively also? Workpage looks good though, I've never seen so many subtopic links, it's glorious! rst20xx (talk) 07:41, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I see now. A-H ordered 5 subs, provisionally numbered U-7 to U-11, but sold them to Germany before they were complete (and they became Germany's U-66 to U-70). Since none were ever commissioned by A-H, U-10 and U-11 were reused for two subs bought from Germany. So, there was only one commissioned sub named U-10 or U-11. — Bellhalla (talk) 13:13, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - with the provision that you and I never end up in the same WikiCup pool ;) Once again, superb work! Cam ^(Chat) 23:41, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support keep 'em coming. Nergaal (talk) 00:25, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support stealing Cam's reason (I wouldn't make it out of that pool alive) —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 00:25, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice work, Belhalla. Parsecboy (talk) 00:40, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Nice work as always Bellhalla. -MBK₀₀₄ 01:08, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Meets WP:WIAFT.--TRU CO 02:50, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Close with consensus to promote - rst20xx (talk) 17:42, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Washington Park, Chicago

6 articles

Schulze Baking Company Plant

Washington Park Race Track

Washington Park (Chicago park)

Washington Park Subdivision

Washington Park Court District

On its second go around, this topic now includes both National Register of Historic Places listings in Chicago properties in the neighborhood. I believe it is now complete with respect to the wishes of the discussants at the first nomination (note the last three articles listed in the box are newly minted WP:GAs). I anticipate a subtopic to evolve with Washington Park (Chicago park) as the main article and DuSable Museum of African American History and Fountain of Time when the latter makes its way through the WP:GAC process (hopefully on its first attempt). The subtopic may also include Bud Billiken Parade and Picnic, depending upon commentary. I do not think any of these belong in the main topic here.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:43, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that I am aware that the Chicago 2016 Olympic bid will be evaluated on 2 October 2009. If successful, there will surely be articles under names to be determined for 2016 Olympic Stadium and 2016 Olympic swimming venue. These are both buildings that may very well have articles in October 2009 but not be completed until October 2016. It would be possible that neither article can achieve WP:GA until 2016. I am not sure whether either will belong in this topic or the subtopic, but these will have to be audited articles for several years in all likelihood.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:06, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support - this is a very impressive topic, much better than last time around. I find it amusing that we have here a topic where 5 of the 6 articles all have the same name! (As an aside, I am not convinced that the articles would be un-GA-able before 2016, but anyway, we'll have to wait and see who gets the Olympics because this might all come to nothing) - rst20xx (talk) 16:37, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about un-GA-able, but I don't think GA should be required until 2016. I should note that I have a lot of experience in getting incomplete buildings through the WP:GA process (Trump International Hotel and Tower (Chicago), Joffrey Tower, and 108 North State Street).--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:41, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~ Support. First of all, I must apologise for never coming back to this discussion after voting oppose last time. It must have slipped my mind, but was very rude of me. secondly, I think this is much closer to completion than the last one was. However I am reluctant to support because I see a problem in the lead article: the In literature section consists of two unconnected sentences and I am not be satisifed that this is compliant with GA standards. Can this section be expanded into a full prose paragraph, or if not at least presented in a more appealing manner? --Jackyd101 (talk) 07:21, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- How is it now?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 08:23, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Better (although "aforementioned adjacent demographically similar" is an unusual turn of phrase). I see no reason not to support.
    - I have taken the last two words out of that phrase.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:55, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- very interesting topic that meets WP:WIAGT.--TRU CO 19:50, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I assume the community area is named after the park? And the park is named after George Washington. Is it possible to say that somewhere in the community area article? rst20xx (talk) 22:22, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- We don't exactly have sources giving the linkage. But, I did what I could.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:48, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - OK, that's good, thanks! rst20xx (talk) 01:58, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (again) - would a navbox be merited? rst20xx (talk) 11:34, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- How common are navboxes linking GTs? Is it mandatory? I could do one pretty easily, but is it warranted? I don't know.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:56, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - No it's not mandatory but it's pretty common, due to 1.c). I'm not sure if it'd be appropriate here because it's not very common to have navboxes on places like this, but here you've clearly defined what articles are in the area already and so I thought it would be worth asking you your opinion. As for whether it's useful, I would say yes, it makes navigating the articles even easier. Not going to change my vote based on this though - rst20xx (talk) 18:37, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I have created one that includes the future subtopic articles as well. See below.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:51, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- - - - That's good, thanks! rst20xx (talk) 20:29, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Close with consensus to promote - rst20xx (talk) 12:03, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Supplementary nominations

Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Washington Park (Chicago park)

Yamato class battleships

Yamato class battleships

4 articles

Yamato

Musashi

Shinano

It is indeed ironic (and fitting) that this is the first MILHIST Topic Nom (though Belhalla has 4 on top of that) to follow after the legendary Iowa-class battleships—the two mightiest classes of warship to have ever existed who ironically, due primarily to logistics and fuel consumption, never met one another in combat. Having worked on this general topic for the last two months, I have finally brought all four of the articles within the project's scope to GA-Status (two others are also A-Class with MILHIST). All articles are GA or higher, and as such I believe that this topic qualifies for GT-Status. Also, since this is my first time doing a GT nom, I apologize in advance if I have goofed in any way. Cam ^(Chat) 04:40, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Z gin der 2009-02-10T05:20Z (UTC)
Support. Meets the GTC criteria. (Full disclosure: I performed the GA review for Japanese aircraft carrier Shinano, and participated in the A-Class review for Japanese battleship Yamato.) — Bellhalla (talk) 05:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -MBK₀₀₄ 05:25, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - and I guess the separate but related class Super Yamato class battleship could be a possible later addition? rst20xx (talk) 12:03, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Possibly, but I doubt it. The Super Yamato class wasn't really related outside of the name and that it was going to be the next class of battleship after the Yamato class. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 16:11, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Meets GT criteria. Parsecboy (talk) 12:54, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Bring on the competition! :) In all seriousness though, everything checks out. Well done! — Preceding unsigned comment added by TomStar81 (talk • contribs)
Support - good work Cam, this meets all the criteria. (disclosure: I helped write part of Yamato-class battleship, and reviewed Yamato for GA.) —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 16:11, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Great work by Cam. Of course a never-ending debate goes on between battleship otaku as to what would have happend if the Yamato battleships had met the Iowa battleships in battle, which almost occurred at Leyte Gulf. I'm sure the result would have been fun for everyone except, of course, the sailors involved. Cla68 (talk) 02:50, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Nice work. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 17:35, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
SupportNergaal (talk) 22:17, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - meets WP:WIAGT.--TRU CO 19:51, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Close with consensus to promote - rst20xx (talk) 22:00, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Simpsons (season 6)

Co-nominators: From Season 6 Topic Drive: Scorpion, TheLeftorium, Gran2, Cirt, Gary King and Nergaal.

Just like the rest. Every one is a GA (except the main one, which is a FL). -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 18:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Outstanding job. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice work. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 20:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Z gin der 2009-02-03T22:25Z (UTC)
Support - keep them coming! rst20xx (talk) 01:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support awesome work -- EA Swyer ^Talk _{Contributions} 00:45, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Tezkag72^{私にどなる}_{私のはかい} 01:44, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice work! --Skizzik ^talk 10:32, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good job. Bernstein2291 (talk) 03:58, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Close with consensus to promote - 5 down, 16 to go - rst20xx (talk) 16:56, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

German Type U 66 submarines

6 articles

SM U-66

SM U-67

SM U-68

SM U-69

SM U-70

Main contribuitor: Bellhalla

Nomination for Good Topic. All six articles (main plus five individual submarines) are GA — Bellhalla (talk) 22:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support - the name might need a plural though. Nergaal (talk) 00:43, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Z gin der 2009-01-28T00:59Z (UTC)
Support - Rreagan007 (talk) 03:17, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - agree on pluralizing the name, but other than that it meets WP:WIAGT.--TRUCO 04:14, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - and so the progress towards a good topic of good submarine topics continues - rst20xx (talk) 12:27, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -MBK₀₀₄ 07:21, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - lol'ing at Tst's comment, though it's totally true. I'm telling you Bellhalla, you should move to U.S. battleships... ;) —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 17:34, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, a decently put together topic, although I would have thought the War Ensign would be a more appropriate image. -- Sabre (talk) 21:39, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Close with consensus to promote - rst20xx (talk) 15:17, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]