Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/Failed log/December 2006

Music of the Lesser Antilles

Main page	Articles
Music of the Lesser Antilles	Music of Anguilla - Music of Antigua and Barbuda - Music of Aruba and the Netherlands Antilles - Music of Barbados - Music of Dominica - Music of Grenada - Music of Guadeloupe - Music of Martinique - Music of Montserrat - Music of Saint Kitts and Nevis - Music of Saint Lucia - Music of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines - Music of Trinidad and Tobago - Music of the Virgin Islands

Old nomination at Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Music of the Lesser Antilles/archive1. I think this topic is pretty good overall, despite the obscurity of some of the components.

Of these, music of the Lesser Antilles, Music of Barbados, Music of Dominica and Music of Antigua and Barbuda are Good Articles. Lesser Antilles is a current FAC, and Saint Lucia and the Virgin Islands are current GAN. Tuf-Kat 15:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. I would have given it my support if it weren't for the Music of Anguilla article, which looks stubby. If it is improved to a reasonable extent, you will have my support. I don't know about comprehensiveness, but if the article deserves to exist (i.e. is notable), there should be more info present. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 17:54, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I've just fleshed out music of Anguilla the best I can. If there is any other verifiable information out there, I can't find evidence of it. Tuf-Kat 05:11, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I would give a weak support now. But we have a different problem at hand. Very few people know of the Featured Topic page. If there aren't four supports, the topic won't be promoted. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 11:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, I'm the only one who's done any promoting here, and I haven't required four supports. (I won't pass this one without at least two more though, with no objects) Four supports will be difficult at this stage. I think this will get more attention as time goes on. Nobody will be interested until there's a significant list, and we won't have that without some time, especially since making a topic feature-worthy is so difficult. Still, over time, we will have a list of welldone topics and that will attract more contributors (who will probably raise the official standards, as well as the standards of what we consider consensus). WP:FL took awhile to take off, IIRC, and so did WP:FP. WP:FAC only didn't because it was just a list of "brilliant prose" in the beginning, and there was no process. Tuf-Kat 08:55, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. It's pretty close, but Music of Anguilla and Music of Grenada seem stubby, and St. Kitts and Nevis and St. Vincent and the Grenadines are pretty short. Additionally, Trinidad and Tobago doesn't have that many sources. The overall topic is pretty good, still. Hurricanehink (talk) 00:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose for now - I would recommend extending its nomination for another week to give the nominator time to expand the short articles. --Arctic Gnome 00:12, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Just to clarify, the topic is fairly close, but Music of Anguilla, Music of Grenada, Music of Saint Kitts and Nevis, and Music of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines are all still start-class. They will have to be expanded to at least B class within the next week to make this topic featured. The topic cannot be promoted without those items, because that would create a significant gap in the topic. --Arctic Gnome 16:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
• Failed - Start-class articles. --Arctic Gnome 06:49, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Lists of Candian federal elections

These articles together provide a summary of the results of all of Canada's federal elections. They fulfill the requirements:

1. Clear similarity
2. Nine articles
3. Linked via {{Elections in Canada}}
4. No gaps
5. All of good quality (would meet Good Article crietria is they allowed lists). References are given at main result pages

• The articles are in the same category (Category:Canadian federal elections)
• The structure of the articles is similar.

I know this something new for the Featured Topic process, being a collection of lists rather than normal articles, which people may feel is not suitable for FT status. Tompw 16:52, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. None of the mentioned articles have any meaningful content (in prose). It is just a collection of nice tables. Even though meant to be lists, an introduction into the given elections is essential; like the pre-election campaigns, controversies, major figures, etc. Also, most of the articles require serious clean-up. Some of them have flowing texts in See also section, while most others are just a farm of red-links. Even the main article is just a timeline with hardly and coherent prose. It doesn't even touch the topic why it is chosen to start the count from 1867 (i.e. info about British North America Acts). Definitely not ready to be a Featured Topic (even if lists were allowed). — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 17:47, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

  OK... large number of points raised here:

  • I agree that lists should have an introduction, however breif (something I will add). However I cannot agree with adding commentry on indivdual elections to the results pages. The articles exsist to provide a list of general elections *results* within the given timespan - hence their titles. Commentry belongs on articles relating to indivual election (e.g. Canadian federal election, 1972 as a random example).
  • I agree with your comments about the See Also sections, and have cleaned things uip accordingly.
  • Saying the main article has hardly any coherent prose is just not true - there's over a thousand words of prose! I shall try and add to the main article intro about the 1867 buisness - good point.
  • Please note: I am not saying these are up to featued list standard (they'd probably fail on 2f and possibly also on 3) - but that's not required for FT status. Tompw 20:13, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

  • The operating word in my objection is "cohesive". How many groups of (say three) sentences is the main article are a part of a single theme? None before 1993, that means it is true for the majority of the article. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 11:50, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
• Nomination was not promoted on 15:32, 7 December 2006 - rst20xx (talk) 13:30, 12 August 2009 (UTC)