Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/Good log/August 2010

Hard Candy

Hard Candy

6 articles

"4 Minutes"

"Give It 2 Me"

"Miles Away"

Sticky & Sweet Tour

Sticky & Sweet Tour (album)

I believe these six articles are comprehensive and together denotes one of the best bunch in Wikipedia. They are about American recording artist (legend) Madonna's eleventh studio album Hard Candy. So with the consensus of my fellow editors, I would like to promote this topic to a good topic. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 10:00, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support no gaps, well done! igordebraga ≠ 22:19, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Excellent work, Legolas. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 15:41, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Great work all around! So what are you going to do after you've done all the Madonna related articles? ;) Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:23, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you crazy? Have you seen the amount of articles pending? :D It will take me a lifetime to complete them. Hope by that time Lady Gaga has come up with another two albums so that I can get mad. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:01, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great work. Gage (talk) 17:47, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support but I think it would be better not to pipe away the "album" part of "Sticky & Sweet Tour (album)". Ucucha 16:18, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Ucucha. I did it. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 03:55, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Aaroncrick ^TALK 08:50, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Close with consensus to promote. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:11, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mesozoic mammals of Madagascar

4 articles

Ambondro

Lavanify

UA 8699

This topic covers all of Madagascar's ancient mammalian fauna, including the oldest mammal with modern-type teeth, a member of one of the weirdest groups of extinct mammals, a broken tooth that can't quite be identified, and some interesting to highly interesting fossils that haven't been described in detail yet and that are therefore covered only in the main article. This is a good topic nomination, but I intend to bring enough articles to FA status to eventually make this a featured topic. Thanks go to Visionholder, Airplaneman, and Sasata (twice), who did the GA reviews for the four articles. Ucucha 19:47, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Low~~ Support - well done, but a topic image would help. igordebraga ≠ 01:26, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've asked for an image of Ambondro to be released and will do the same for the two others. Thanks for the support. Ucucha 05:59, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've now added the image the discoverers of Ambondro were kind enough to release. Ucucha 20:00, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Main article implies that at least 6 species are known. Yet asides from the three here, there is only another mention of "nearly complete, articulated skeleton of an immature, cat-sized mammal that has not yet been fully described" in 2000. It appears that the mammal with the most remains known does not even have a separate article. I would be weary to support a topic which alludes to having at least 6 members, one of which I could not find a clear description in the main article, and another one which has remained "undescribed" since 2000. 18.111.55.86 (talk) 00:53, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not unusual for such things to happen in biology; I'm currently describing some new species on the basis of material collected in the 1960s. The main article lists everything that has been published and summarizes information on the three species that have been fully described. I assume they are still preparing and describing the articulated skeleton, or perhaps waiting for Nature or Science reviewers—but there is no point in making a separate article on it now, as all available information is covered by the paragraph in the main article. I will, of course, write a full article on this animal as soon as its description has been published. Ucucha 07:27, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support an interesting scientific read. Sandman888 (talk) ^{Latest PR} 13:58, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Courcelles 09:25, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good work. Gage (talk) 20:40, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Close with consensus to promote. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 03:48, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kaiser Friedrich III class battleships

Kaiser Friedrich III class battleships

6 articles

SMS Kaiser Friedrich III

SMS Kaiser Wilhelm II

SMS Kaiser Wilhelm der Grosse

SMS Kaiser Karl der Grosse

SMS Kaiser Barbarossa

These were Germany's second class of battleships, and the first class built under the naval expansion program initiated by Admiral Alfred von Tirpitz. The ships saw very limited service during World War I and were quickly decommissioned. Parsecboy (talk) 10:41, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Nice work. Ucucha 18:18, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -MBK₀₀₄ 00:13, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:40, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Another one for SHIPS! Staxringold _talk^contribs 22:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Righteous. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:13, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Terrence and Phillip 10:02, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great work. Gage (talk) 17:46, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Close with consensus to promote. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 03:33, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

German Type IXA submarines

9 articles

U-37

U-38

U-39

U-40

U-41

U-42

U-43

U-44

Good Topic nomination. This topic covers all of the German Type IXA submarines including the class article itself. It has taken me several months to promote all of these articles to GA status and I hope that you all agree that it meets all of the criteria.--White Shadows ^{It's a wonderful life} 16:20, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I understand that the flag of the Kriegsmarine is a bit offensive to some so if anyone has an alternate image then feel free to add it in as a replacement.--White Shadows ^{It's a wonderful life} 16:34, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Good work. Ucucha 16:32, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support, File:U37 Lorient 1940.jpg may be the best image available if someone objects to the flag. Courcelles (talk) 19:59, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Do we really need the entire title for each of these articles? If we do, only the U-43 (for example) needs italics. I suggest just using the U numbers... -MBK₀₀₄ 03:29, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed.--White Shadows ^{It's a wonderful life} 14:16, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support -MBK₀₀₄ 01:45, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Terrence and Phillip 10:03, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Close with consensus to promote. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 03:16, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indefatigable class battlecruisers

Indefatigable class battlecruisers

4 articles

HMS Indefatigable

HMAS Australia

HMS New Zealand

This is a good topic nomination of another class of British WWI battlecruisers, once of which was actually an Australian-owned ship. I've been waiting for the last article to reach GA for quite a while.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:12, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support for another fine ships topic. Ucucha 18:07, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support I think it will be most appropriate as well. Kyteto (talk) 20:21, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -MBK₀₀₄ 21:28, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Terrence and Phillip 10:02, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Courcelles 02:47, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support this obviously has legs to become a FT. Parsecboy (talk) 12:12, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Close with consensus to promote. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 02:43, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Battlecruisers of Russia

4 articles

Borodino class

Kronshtadt class

Stalingrad class

A proposed good topic consisting of all three of the unfinished Russian battlecruisers classes. The lead list was just promoted and hasn't been processed by the bot as I write this.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:07, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment—I don't think you should have links to "battlecruiser" in the FT box. Ucucha 17:20, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's why we don't used the template! <slap to forehead> Knew there was something I was forgetting. Thanks for catching that.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:25, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks. Come to think of it, wouldn't it be better to leave out the redundant word "battlecruiser" in the links for the classes? Also, shouldn't this be a GT instead of an FT nomination? Ucucha 17:31, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Indeed. It is a GT nom, they're named the same as candidates.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:45, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - You placed this under featured, not good, topic candidates, though. I've moved it to the correct location. Ucucha 17:48, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Oops, thanks for fixing it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:35, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Meets all criteria. Ucucha 17:48, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Image issue - I do not believe it is permissible to use a non-free image as the main image of the topic (even with a FUR, I believe those are only valid for articles)). -MBK₀₀₄ 19:30, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There are no free-use images of any of these ships. Do we want to have no image at all?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:39, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think so. Fair-use images are never permitted outside of mainspace, and you'll probably get someone here removing it soon. Ucucha 19:47, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I removed the image; the non-free image-use criteria are strict about namespace restrictions, I'm afraid. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:33, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- An IP just added the naval ensign of the Soviet Union as the image. Considering that one of the three classes was Imperial Russian, that doesn't seem completely appropriate. Ucucha 17:51, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Considering two out of three were Soviet designs, I can see why. Both, though, would be best, if it were possible.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:13, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - True. That's not possible with the current template, though, unless you create an image that combines the Imperial and Soviet ensigns. Ucucha 18:18, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - That's what I figured, so I'm not going to get worked up about it. If some kind soul cares to combine them for me that'd be great, but I'm not going to take the time to figure out how to do one.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:50, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -MBK₀₀₄ 03:31, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Buggie111 (talk) 14:58, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great work. Gage (talk) 22:20, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Parsecboy (talk) 12:16, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Close with consensus to promote. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 02:20, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]