I'm nominating this topic as a featured article removal candidate per criterion 6, which says the following;
"Each article should be of a good quality, including references. Not all articles need be featured class, but several should be. The rest must be all Good Articles or A class except where achieving such a class is impossible."
While there are two FAs there, the 3 other articles aren't of at least GA / A quality, and I feel that they could achieve such a class if given work. Remove per my reasoning. LuciferMorgan 20:30, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Remove 3 out of 5 articles not at least GA. We can't call that a featured topic. Jay32183 02:55, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't know if it makes a difference, but "Sparty", MSU's mascot, is a good article. Lovelac7 03:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Lovelac7, This may help keep MSU on the Featured Topic Section!! Max 08:47, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Academics article is probably more or less GA quality too. --Spangineerws(háblame) 05:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say, right now it's less since the website refs don't have accessdates. When you use {{cite web}} fill in all the parameters you can. Jay32183 17:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I checked the pages, made sure the links still worked, and added access dates. Lovelac7 02:56, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The non FAs are moderatly long, nicly written, and very well referenced. I think they all of high enough quality to keep this topic featured. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 04:24, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wait - I know that things are supposed to stay here for 14 days, but lets make sure that it stays for at least that time, to give the Campus article time to go through GAC, and hopefully academics at least nom'd. If we can get all but spartans up to ga+ before the review ends, I'd say keep, with no prejudice against renominating it for removal if spartans doesn't get improved pretty soon after. --PresN 18:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's fair to wait for any articles currently at GAC. Why remove its FT status if it'll be nominated again in only a week? Jay32183 19:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's reasonable. This debate should stay open pending the result of the GAC noms. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 22:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have also put the Academics article up for peer review. Please give me any feedback there. As for the Spartans athletics article, I'll see if I can work on it this week. Lovelac7 08:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok cool. Can you please also clean up the citations for the two FAs? The current style is very mixed and needs a brush up. LuciferMorgan 23:46, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I've checked the references for all 5 FT articles. They should be up to snuff now. Lovelac7 02:56, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Articles "Campus of Michigan State University", "Michigan State Spartans" and "Michigan State University academics" are current good article candidates. Wait to see What happends with the articles before removing the MSU section.
De-list if at least one of the other articles isn't either a "Good Article" or in a review by the 21st (14 days after de-list nomination). I think that the featured topic idea is really great, but, even counting that the non-recognised articles are nicely done... they need to be held to the same standard as the other topics. —ScouterSig 14:34, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to get all of these to FA. In the mean time, we have two three articles in GAC. Feel free to review them if you have time. Lovelac7 23:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If this gets delisted you can always renominate it as an FT. LuciferMorgan 08:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The "Men's basketball" section of Michigan State Spartanas has a few external jumps. LuciferMorgan 16:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Campus" is now a GA. One down, two to go. Lovelac7 20:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—improving to current FT standards. — Deckiller 21:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Academics is now a GA, leaving only Spartans as B-class, and a current GACandidate. --PresN 15:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Closing discussion as keep - This topic may now have some issues with gaps, but the original reason for FTRC nomination was that there were not enough GAs and FAs. Since then articles have been promoted, and consensus seems to agree that the issue has been dealt with. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 06:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would like this topic to be removed, because Halloween (film series) is not a GA and the topic does have an obvious gap with the rest of the films missing. --Maitch 13:52, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Remove - I was about to nominate this myself. It's missing five movies, which makes an obvious gap in the topic. The missing movies are all start-class, so they are ineligible to be added to the topic. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 18:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Same here, was about to nominate. Circeus 18:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Remove per gap and dubious quality of main article.Circeus 18:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It COULD be kept if it was refactored as "Halloween original trilogy" series, and if the main article was improved, though.Circeus 18:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if "original trilogy" would work with this. It would be an artificial title given to the first three films that (as far as I know) none of the people involved in the films actually used themselves. Dmoon1 18:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any special about the first three movies that would let them be their own topic without the rest of the series? --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 23:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How about the fact that John Carpenter was involved with those three?--Rmky87 00:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if "Halloween films by John Carpenter" is a clear enough topic to pass critiria #1. It seems a bit arbitrary. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 01:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Remove It's a shame it has to be removed, but the film articles from 4 onwards aren't that wonderful. It'd be great if DMoon1 wished to work on the other Halloween films sometime in the future - he did a splendid job on the first three. LuciferMorgan 10:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Remove obvious gap in topic, missing articles not at least GA. Jay32183 06:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
After looking at the topic I asked mysele, WHy is this a featured topic? Only 1/3 of the articles are good or featured. Most of the others have no rating which makes me wonder how this got passed in the first place. In my opnion, at least half should by Good/FA. The Placebo Effect 21:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was promoted in the early days of the project, before all of the rules were as they are now. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 04:19, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Strong remove — it was an early promotion, sort of like "brilliant prose" with FAs. Besides, the two primary articles are already included in the FF games topic. — Deckiller 02:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that the two primary articles are already included in another topic is not grounds for removal. The FT system was designed to allow subtopics to branch off of top-level topics, just like this does. Also, there is no such thing as "speedy remove" (or a "speedy promote" for that matter). All topics deserve thier two weeks so that interested parties can make thier points. Who knows, maybe some user would be willing to get all of these articles up to GA status within the next few days. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 04:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that it is not grounds for removal; I was using it as a seperate point. The editors normally associated with this article (myself not included) have for the most part left. I'm going on Wikibreak due to stress, so I won't be able to work on them either. The rest of the Final Fantasy project seems to be busy working on other issues right now, especially with a lot of other issues presenting themselves. However, the "speedy remove" comment was not for this reason; it was to emphasise my wrongdoing for nominating the FT several months ago in the first place. In other words, I did not mean it to be taken literally. I'll change it to strong remove instead. — Deckiller 04:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As a member of WP:FF, WP:SE, and WP:VG, all of whom claim this topic as their own, it hurts to say this, but remove. It does stick out like a sore thumb when looking at the FT page, doesn't it. --PresN 05:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Agree with nom - there simply isn't enough high quality pages to warrant status as a featured topic. Qjuad 05:55, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Remove - This doesn't quite cut it, too many B-class articles. It's too bad, because many of those articles are moderatly long and referenced. It wouln't take too much work to get these up to snuff. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 04:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Remove as there's too many non GA/FAs. I'd suggest working up the articles and renominating in future. LuciferMorgan 01:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Remove I'm going to have to agree with the above and say there are too many articles that aren't GAs or FAs for this to be an FT. Jay32183 20:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Remove as per all of the above. Tarret 18:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
