Hey, it's taken the better part of 15 months, but here's a topic on the Hugo Awards- science fiction's biggest awards. The awards are broken up in several current and historical categories, and they're all featured lists. The lead is only a GA, but when I get some time I plan on tracking down some offline sources to boost it to FA, so that the whole thing will be featured. It's still a Featured Topic nomination right now, though, and everything should be good to go! --PresN19:54, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Headbomb thought so as well, but I reverted it because this way, like is with like- written works together, magazines together, etc. Additionally, despite all the many categories Novels, and to a lesser extent the other written stories, are the big players- most people are only vaguely aware that there are even other categories, caring only about the novel of the year- and this layout puts them first in the topic box. --PresN00:17, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural nom; this topic was originally delisted since the primary article writer left. He has returned and brought the articles up to GA though, so this topic is again complete. WizardmanOperation Big Bear17:25, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's been a lot of work, but I have finally promoted all of the Fringe season 2 articles to either GA or FA status. This will be my first GT, and I'm ready and willing to address any of your comments. Thanks. --Ruby2010comment!03:19, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I have reviewed some Fringe articles for GA, all the ones I read are in shape. And also thanks to Ruby2010 for the hard work of putting them together. -- MatthewRD21:05, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but I wonder whether Unearthed should be here or in season one. Or, I should ask, was that episode indeed included on the season 2 box set? Furthermore, I'd like if the deadlinks were fixed. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:50, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support. Unearthed was indeed included on the season 2 DVD, and is generally considered a part of that season due to the broadcast date. Also, what deadlinks are you referring to? None came up during the recent GA reviews. Thanks, Ruby2010comment!18:00, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Had a wee look online, and I couldn't find anything that met WP:RS that made the connections cited. If they're not mentioned on the DVD, maybe in a featurette or commentary, it might be safer removing them until they can be sourced. GRAPPLEX02:37, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All of those links belonged to a certain author at the Vancouver Sun. I couldn't find them or the cited information anywhere else on Google, so I just deleted the URLs and kept them as treelinks. I also addressed a few issues with the Chicago Tribune sources in the season 2 article. Thanks for taking the time to look them over, Ruby2010comment!16:03, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support for the big version, not only because it looks grand and majestic and more visually appealing but also because it is far more illuminating and has a more cohesive and encyclopedic feel to it. Also, it is equally well logically set up as the shortened version. Great work by Parsecboy. - DSachan (talk) 09:44, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support the single topic. I wasn't a fan of having the different topics in the ultimate form, although I think that worked great for the development of the entire topic. I may have to steal that idea for the hurricane project. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:01, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just to note that I will likely do this promotion in two parts. The first will be to cut the 11 merged topics and turn them into former ones, the second will be promotion of the big topic. It may be over the course of a couple days, so don't panic if it looks like I'm just removing a bunch of topics. WizardmanOperation Big Bear15:52, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All of the articles now are good. I can't see any of the other storms getting articles with how weak and dumpy they are. Thus, I'm happy to nominate this batch of articles for GT. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:34, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have worked on these articles since late last year, and I believe that the articles cover the topic of Usher's fifth studio album comprehensively. The tour was not huge, so it is included in the album article. --Adabow (talk · contribs) 21:55, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Looking good to me in general. However, there should ideally be a navigation template uniting the articles in the topic. I assume the tour is not notable for an article of its own. Ucucha00:15, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Since the 1980s, weird teeth have been turning up in ancient rocks in South America. We don't quite know what they are—most likely multituberculates—and this series therefore contains a lot of uncertainties. Possibly it covers two quite unrelated groups of animals. All articles are GAs (thanks to the reviewing efforts of Sasata, Casliber, J Milburn, and Visionholder), so this is a GT nomination. --Ucucha01:48, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I've changed the navbox, as I don't see a good reason to use anything other than alphabetical ordering. Ucucha12:13, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think it's worth pointing out that the formatting of the references is inconsistent between the articles. Ferugliotheriidae and Ferugliotherium have the more standard quoted articles, italic journals, while the other three use a different style (which I seem to remember is a style used in a journal you read). If we're bringing these together as one topic, consistency would be nice- I'd go with the former, as it's what the MoS recommends. J Milburn (talk) 15:27, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the citation style I use on articles about halfway through this topic. I don't think there's a requirement for articles in an FT to be consistent with each other as regards references, and WP:CITEHOW says we shouldn't be changing reference styles. Ucucha15:30, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for good topic because after a lot of work, I think that I can say that it meets the criteria. Thank you for any comments, CrowzRSA22:22, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I think that it should be a Slayer albums topic (overview), and singles be hosted in albums' subtopics, but I will wait for others' opinions. Adabow (talk · contribs) 00:38, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But the discography article covers the following:
—Studio albums
—Live albums
—Extended plays
—Box sets
—Singles
—Soundtracks
—Music videos
—Videos
Since soundtracks really don't have much to do with the band, I didn't include them, but since Singles are covered on the page, and were releases, they should be included in the topic. CrowzRSA01:30, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Would it be a good idea to have the studio albums be a subtopic in here? It'd cut this topic almost in half but it would keep the other one intact. I don't have an opinion either way on that. WizardmanOperation Big Bear19:17, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is a pretty impressive scoreboard. It seems that all notable items in the discography of this band are GA or FA, so it would make the most sense to me to have a single topic and merge in all the smaller subtopics, as we might be going to do with the German battlecruisers above. That way, all the related stuff is together. Ucucha00:31, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support despite preferring subtopics than basically repeating the two FTs by including the songs, an impressive piece of work. igordebraga≠15:03, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ice hockey lines consist of three forwards (a center, left wing & right wing). Though it is common for line combinations to be changed including in game, productive lines will stay together. If a line is successful or popular enough it is not uncommon for the line to receive a nickname. The West Coast Express was one such line that played for the Vancouver Canucks. I have nominated this for a Good Topic based on the fact that all three member articles of the line are GA as well as the article about the line itself. I feel that this is very similar to the wrestling tag team GTs that already exist. Thanks for your time.--Mo Rock...Monstrous(leech44)15:12, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So I'm apparently a complete idiot, could some one move the page from Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/.../archive1 to the appropriate name Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/West Coast Express/archive1? Sorry for the inconvenience, but before I finish the next steps I'm going to wait so that things aren't missed after a change in pages.--Mo Rock...Monstrous(leech44)15:21, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Makes sense to me. It would be nice to have some sort of navigation template linking the four articles. Ucucha00:17, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]