Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/Featured log/November 2011

Good topic candidates: view - edit - history

Song Dynasty

I noticed that this was delisted, and that Architecture of the Song Dynasty was in good, fixable shape. After a year of having this on my desk, and after teaming up with some true talents, I bring the renomination of Song Dynasty. AotSD got promoted less than an hour ago.

Song dynasty

8 articles

History

Society

Culture

Economy

Science and technology

Architecture

List of emperors

Procedural: Nomination is for Featured Topic. Book existed already. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:37, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support I was the reviewer of the AotSD article, the rest look great, can't wait to see this topic back. Buggie111 (talk) 16:57, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment Alt text is in some dire of attention. Not a reason to oppose per say, but since the topic is getting scrutiny, might as well think of our readers with visual disabilities. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:12, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

AotSD's alts are now in. It took a while to do. I'll do the others, but over the next few days, as time permits. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:47, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Culture, History, and Economy are also now in. List of Emperors had its in already. Five down, three to go. Everything is done except for half of Society (17 left) and the lead article, which will go by very quickly. All the alt texts are in. Sven Manguard Wha? 15:14, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• Comment There's are few deadlink the articles. See [1], [2], [3], and [4]. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:25, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Problems at #1 are fixed. One needed a link update, the other was removed. Neither were sources.

Problems at #2 are fixed. See below. Both of citations that are broken from #2 are the same site, a Chinese language cite. I will ask wctaiwan if he can navigate guoxue.com and find new links for us. If not, I might have some comparable information for one of the two cited pieces of information, however there's no way I have the other.

Problems at #3 are fixed. It was an external link, a copy of one of the sources, and it went dark. This dosen't invalidate the source though, so no issue here.

Problems at #4 are fixed. I tried tracking down the ref from item #4 with no luck. There were two back to back refs, so that dead ref might be unnecessary, but I'd need to find someone with the Needham tome first. Done, wctaiwan found the new link. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:47, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

At least one of the guoxue.com links are available in the Wayback Machine, see [5]. wctaiwan (talk) 07:32, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Replaced both links at #2 with Wayback Machine archive copies. wctaiwan (talk) 07:47, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

All of these are now done! Sven Manguard Wha? 15:19, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support Good to see this topic back up to standards. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:32, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support I think this topic satisfies the criteria. wctaiwan (talk) 05:04, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
• Comment. I'm not familiar with the criteria for featured topics, but it looks easily passable. One thing though: a couple of the articles have a few minor issues (yes, read: pickiness) which could be easily fixed. Suggest perhaps run the automated peer reviewer through each of them just to iron out some of the kinks. Nightw 23:06, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
  • I ran an AWB cleanup program, which corrected a few template names, fixed a dash or two, and modified the order in which certain templates were listed. I also manually removed the dab-fix in history, it wasn't necessary. If there's any other automated programs you recommend, I'm going to have to ask you to do them, as the only external programs I have that are Wikipedia related are Huggle and AWB. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:21, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
    • Oh, I just meant the one on toolserver (here). Nightw 15:17, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
      • For personal reasons, I don't use and am opposed to that tool. I'd prefer not to go into any more detail. Sven Manguard Wha? 12:11, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
        • Righto... Would you mind if I used it to pick up on any MoS deficiencies? Nightw 04:55, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
          • By all means, go ahead. I don't use it because I take issue with some of the philosophy/advice built into the tool, but I have no reason to stop other people from making the choice to accept that tool's advice. Sven Manguard Wha? 07:51, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Just from these check-throughs I can see that this is a high-quality set of articles. Nightw 10:57, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

• Closed with consensus to promote as Featured Topic. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:00, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Cöln class cruisers

Cöln class cruisers

3 articles

SMS Cöln (1916)

SMS Dresden (1917)

The last class of light cruisers of the Imperial Navy - ten were planned but only two were completed, mainly due to the lack of resources late in the war. Parsecboy (talk) 12:52, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:15, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support I see no reason not to support. Jim Sweeney (talk) 14:16, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support - Another round of excellent work from Parsec. - DSachan (talk) 02:58, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
• Comment They look good. Since I had to go through it, I only feel it fair to ask you to put alt texts in for your images. (Mind you, you only have two images between the three articles, and I had over a hundred, but that only means you can get it done faster.) I'd do it myself, but I have no idea how to describe a ship, and don't know what the different parts are called. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:48, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
• Closed with consensus to promote as Good Topic. GamerPro64 23:43, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Spongiforma

Spongiforma

3 articles

Spongiforma squarepantsii

Spongiforma thailandica

Contributor(s): Sasata

I think this set of three GA-class articles meets the criteria for GT. Sasata (talk) 04:43, 12 October 2011 (UTC) --Sasata (talk) 04:43, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support — just a pity it's not Spongibobia (: Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:04, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Meets the criteria. Ucucha (talk) 11:31, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:56, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Meets criteria. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:35, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support. I was going to nominate it when I found this entry. Chris857 (talk) 00:52, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support. A pleasantly quirky genus for the first recognised fungal topic. Cortinarius next? :) J Milburn (talk) 21:56, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

• Possibly. If I do, I'll be expecting your support in 2123. Sasata (talk) 00:37, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support - Book report shows no problems, everything has alt texts, images check out, and articles don't contain any errors obvious enough for me to catch. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:53, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

• Closed as promoted Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:07, 18 November 2011 (UTC)