The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Comment: It doesn't actually look to me as though that article is necessary for the scope of the topic. The Turtle is only mentioned once in the overview article, as a curious aside; it seems clear that it didn't significantly impact the course of the campaign. I would say that that article probably never really belonged in this topic. -
Bryan Rutherford (
talk) 23:24, 1 March 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep Agree with Bryan here. That article is about the submersible in general not just the attack itself, being an
WP:EASTEREGG link. Otherwise
HMS Eagle (1774) would be included too. The Turtle attack is also described briefly in
Landing at Kip's Bay.
Reywas92Talk 20:08, 21 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Remove Turtle - if that is removed then the remaining topic qualifies without issue. And as mentioned, that article is only tangentially associated with it and thus does not break the "completeness" of the topic.
MPJ-DK (
talk) 22:11, 3 May 2020 (UTC)reply
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Fails criterion 3.b as
Hurricane Lane (2018) and
Hurricane Willa are not
WP:GA, are not being worked on, and are past the three month grace period (the official National Hurricane Center reports were both released on 2 April 2019
[1][2]).
ArmbrustTheHomunculus 10:44, 15 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment - In Lane's case I would argue that the final tropical cyclone report is not yet out (see Page 1), since the CPHC has not yet completed its analyses of Lane in the central Pacific where it peaked.
Jason Rees (
talk) 15:30, 15 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Remove, even if some allowance for timing was made for Lane, Hurricane Willa is not a GA at this point.
MPJ-DK (
talk) 02:14, 18 January 2020 (UTC)reply
@
MPJ-DK: It has been a month since you posted this, but
KN2731 just added around 16 kB to the article, moved from a page called GAN prep. Seems like it will be at GAN soon. Kees08 (Talk) 19:20, 17 February 2020 (UTC)reply
I asked KN2731 if he could merge the content that Oof-Off and I worked on and use my research to expand the article. With my research and the new sources KN finds, it should be up for GAN in the near future. Btw, I nominated Lane for GAN.
NoahTalk 00:20, 18 February 2020 (UTC)reply
@
Kees08: I am not seeing Hurricane Willa nominated for GA? Am I seeing that wrong? Since it's not even a GAN and we're two months past the 3 month window, I am afraid my comment stands.
MPJ-DK (
talk) 02:44, 18 February 2020 (UTC)reply
@
MPJ-DK: Usually in cases like this, an extension can be made as long as articles are actively being moved towards satisfying the requirements. Lane is at GAN right now and Willa should be there in short order.
NoahTalk 03:08, 18 February 2020 (UTC)reply
I am all for extensions being made, the removal candidate does not seem to have a lot of support, so I have no problem with giving the authors a reasonable amount of time to get it to GAN. Whatever ya'll think is "reasonable"
MPJ-DK (
talk) 03:16, 18 February 2020 (UTC)reply
Sorry about the delay, KN's laptop broke at the end of February and it appears to be fixed now so he should be able to resume work on the article. It appears he has quite a bit of information prepped for the article now.
NoahTalk 17:03, 6 March 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep - looks like all are GA or better now.
MPJ-DK (
talk) 16:49, 23 March 2020 (UTC)reply
@
Armbrust: Could you please keep this open pending the result of the FAC for Lane?
NoahTalk 15:01, 24 March 2020 (UTC)reply
I'm the director for Featured Topics. Could have asked me. But I can keep it up until the end of the FAC.
GamerPro64 22:15, 24 March 2020 (UTC)reply
This should probably continue as a supplemental nom, now that everything is at least GA.
GamerPro64 What do you think?
ArmbrustTheHomunculus 21:56, 27 March 2020 (UTC)reply
Yeah we can do that. Depending on whether the FAC passes or fails we will have to see if it retains its Featured Topic status.
GamerPro64 22:09, 27 March 2020 (UTC)reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Remove: Seems like a necessary article to me. -
Bryan Rutherford (
talk) 19:33, 7 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Agree. I merged it into the main article in May 2017, but it was recently de-merged, hence why it is coming up now but not at the original nomination. Kees08 (Talk) 20:09, 7 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Regretful remove: The concerns at Audrey's GAR appear valid, and though it looks like significant work has been done on the article since it was delisted, it's not currently nominated at GAN. Unless someone steps in to put Audrey back up at GAN and see it through, the topic will have to be delisted.— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Bryanrutherford0 (
talk •
contribs) 23:11, 1 March 2020 (UTC)reply
Remove. It's a shame since so much work went into getting all of them to FL status, but it would take much more to get them back to where they need to be.
NatureBoyMD (
talk) 14:54, 30 November 2020 (UTC)reply
Remove per nom. I suppose this is the drawback to putting so much work into lists that are very taxing to maintain...
Aza24 (
talk) 22:01, 30 November 2020 (UTC)reply
I am nominating this for Good Topic removal when "Sorry" has been delisted as a GA, which means the topic no longer qualifies to be GT. The other pages might also need to be reassessed based on concerns listed at
Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Sorry (Madonna song)/1.
SNUGGUMS (
talk /
edits) 15:02, 16 October 2020 (UTC)reply
Delist: Sorry is definitely needed to complete the topic. In the absence of work toward getting it back to GA, the topic has to be delisted. -
Bryan Rutherford (
talk) 18:29, 16 October 2020 (UTC)reply
Delist GT per removal of "Sorry". As I initially suggested in GAR, a few other articles have not been properly reviewed to maintain GA status such as "
Get Together". Maybe each of them should be individually reviewed instead of as a collective. —
Angryjoe1111 (
talk) 03:35, 17 October 2020 (UTC)reply
Delist per removal of "Sorry" and "Get Together" needs better sources.
MarioSoulTruthFan (
talk) 13:29, 21 October 2020 (UTC)reply
Remove per nominator.
Aoba47 (
talk) 02:11, 26 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Closed with consensus to have the topic Delisted--十八 23:13, 8 February 2020 (UTC)reply
For the record, I did not receive
this ping (which will only send when signed in the same edit) so I had no idea this was happening. FYI @
Rhain
From the extant sourcing and its current coverage in the main article, to my eyes, both articles in question should be reverted to redirects. czar 00:18, 9 February 2020 (UTC)reply
@
Czar: Apologies you did not recieve the ping (I completely forgot about the querk about it not working if you do not sign and made that same mistake on the
talk page). Regarding the two articles you may be able redirect the
List of Red Dead Redemption characters which currently has little external coverage in the article. However, I have not done a thorough search of coverage for that list (considering the large coverage of the game itself it is very possible that the charcters may have met
WP:LISTN so if you are planning on redirecting I would suggest an AfD). Although, the
John Marston article is unlikely to be redirected considering there was a
previous AfD which resulted in it being kept. Regards
Spy-cicle💥 Talk? 22:37, 10 February 2020 (UTC)reply
Fails criterion 3.b as
Sky (video game) is not a
WP:GA, isn't being worked on, and is past the three month grace period (the game was released in July).
ArmbrustTheHomunculus 17:20, 7 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Remove: Unfortunately,
Sky (video game) does not seem to be remotely ready for a GAN or FAC. I agree with the nominator.
Aoba47 (
talk) 17:17, 13 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Remove Courtesy pinging @
PresN: as PresN was the original nominator. But unfortunately
Sky (video game) is not close to being put through GAN any time soon.
Spy-cicle💥 Talk? 14:20, 15 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Fails criterion 3.b as
2019 Emirates Cup is not a
WP:GA, isn't being worked on, and is past the three month grace period (the tournament was in July). « Gonzo fan2007(talk) @ 21:53, 13 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Remove: Unfortunately, the 2019 article is nowhere near the GA standard and hasn't been worked on since July. -
Bryan Rutherford (
talk) 02:02, 1 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Remove: - 2019 is in not close to GA condition.
PMG (
talk) 08:07, 13 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Remove, I agree with the nominator on thearticle needing to be there and comments on that article not being GA ready.
MPJ-DK (
talk) 02:10, 18 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Closed with consensus to have the topic Delisted -
GamerPro64 04:36, 7 February 2020 (UTC)reply
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Remove:The new game's article is not close to being a Good Article, and with its release date in October we're solidly past the three-month grace period. -
Bryan Rutherford (
talk) 22:20, 3 March 2020 (UTC)reply
Remove: The 2019 remake isn't a GA and is nowhere near GA quality right now.
Namcokid47(Contribs) 02:07, 11 March 2020 (UTC)reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Remove: A real shame, but the topic can't stand without Ceres, and the concerns raised at its
WP:FAR are legitimate. Hopefully Ceres is brought back up to date soon! -
Bryan Rutherford (
talk) 15:41, 1 March 2020 (UTC)reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Remove: A real shame, but the topic can't stand without Ceres, and the concerns raised at its
WP:FAR are legitimate. Hopefully Ceres is brought back up to date soon! -
Bryan Rutherford (
talk) 15:41, 1 March 2020 (UTC)reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Remove: The topic needs some sort of article covering the magistrates, and the concerns raised at the article's GAR seem legitimate. -
Bryan Rutherford (
talk) 23:19, 1 March 2020 (UTC)reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Nominating this for review due to current governor of Kentucky
Andy Beshear not being a Good Article. As the grace period expired in March, this needed to be made.
GamerPro64 19:50, 11 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Remove: Straightforward, current governor is certainly needed for the complete topic. -
Bryan Rutherford (
talk) 20:38, 11 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Remove, as primary topic author. This was a fun project, and one of which I am still proud, but it takes WAY too long to build good articles on contemporary politicians, because there aren't any summative sources on their lives and careers yet. I don't have the time to work on them like I used to.
Acdixon(
talk·contribs) 21:42, 11 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Additionally, if you are so inclined,
Steve Beshear and
Matt Bevin very likely would fail a GAR. I haven't been able to keep them updated for a few years.
Acdixon(
talk·contribs) 21:46, 11 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Remove - as above, one is not a GA and the most recent two have challenges (totally understandably in the current events etc.) Shame because a metric ton of work went into it.
MPJ-DK (
talk) 07:13, 28 May 2020 (UTC)reply
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Fails criterion 3.b as
Gigaton is not a
WP:GA, isn't being worked on, and is past the three month grace period (the album was released on 27 March 2020).
ArmbrustTheHomunculus 08:01, 29 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Remove: No sign of a GAN for Gigaton, so, unless someone wants to take that on, the topic has to be delisted. -
Bryan Rutherford (
talk) 12:31, 29 July 2020 (UTC)reply
As the nominator of the topic, maybe I'll get to work on Gigaton ASAP. Only don't know if it will be fast enough to prevent demotion.
igordebraga≠ 17:11, 9 August 2020 (UTC)reply
We're definitely not looking to demote; if you'll get the GAN process started, we'll hold off. -
Bryan Rutherford (
talk) 23:01, 9 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment Agree with Bryan and Igordebraga. The last article can easily be turned into a GA within the next two weeks. Until then, I yield my vote until otherwise.
KingSkyLord (
talk |
contribs) 04:05, 29 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Just checked and there's not much activity, but the article has a move request in progress that began on 9 September that may be discouraging progress.--
Sturmvogel 66 (
talk) 00:32, 18 September 2020 (UTC)reply
Closed with consensus to have the topic Delisted -
GamerPro64 04:21, 30 September 2020 (UTC)reply
Since ornithologists recently reassigned the species, the African crake is no longer considered to belong in this genus, and the article on the genus was turned from a GA into a redirect to
Corn crake. So, now the topic has no main article and only one other article, and it probably needs to be removed. -
Bryan Rutherford (
talk) 22:59, 9 August 2020 (UTC)reply