Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/Featured log/November 2007

National Hockey League awards

Main page

Articles

National Hockey League awards

Hart Memorial Trophy James Norris Memorial Trophy Vezina Trophy Conn Smythe Trophy Frank J. Selke Trophy Lady Byng Memorial Trophy Lester B. Pearson Award Calder Memorial Trophy Bill Masterton Memorial Trophy King Clancy Memorial Trophy Jack Adams Award Presidents' Trophy Maurice 'Rocket' Richard Trophy Art Ross Trophy Prince of Wales Trophy William M. Jennings Trophy Clarence S. Campbell Bowl O'Brien Trophy NHL Plus/Minus Award Stanley Cup - Mark Messier Leadership Award - Roger Crozier Saving Grace Award - NHL Foundation Player Award

Well, this is it. After a longish drive, many editors have written these amazing lists (mostly), to lead to a featured topic. All concerns will be addressed. Also, it may be useful to note that Stanley Cup is undergoing a copyedit to prepare for a possible FAC, and NHL Plus-Minus Award should be a featured list quite soon (actually when I stop being a bit lazy, and do some work. :( ). Maxim_{(talk) (contributions)} 23:01, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Great topic, but for lists, we have so far required all items to be featured rather than just A-class. The Mark Messier Leadership award is exempt from this because its a new award and can't become a FL, but there is no reason why the Roger Crozier Saving Grace Award can't have a history added like all the others and become FL. I can't support this while that one is still A-class. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 23:40, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I would have to disagree, The Roger Crozier Saving Grace Award is too new to become a FL which is why I believe it is not one yet. --Djsasso 23:46, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
    • True. You would have to wait at least a decade before Mark Messier Leadership Award, Roger Crozier Saving Grace Award and NHL Foundation Player Award are long enough to be of FL length. As well, there really isn't enough content out there for a history section for those pages either. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:48, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment On the Saving Grace award, the biggest problem with adding historical leaders prior to the creation of the award is a lack of sources. Goaltending stats have been haphazardly kept throughout much of the NHL's history, such that it is unlikely that a stat such as save percentage would have been reliably kept, if at all. As a result, there would be large gaps of years where this data is not compiled, and in the best case, could be resolved only through original research, which may well be impossible anyway. Resolute 00:09, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

• Looks good I've looked through it and it's good. Not fully up to scratch but it's nearly there and I see no reson to deny it featured status--Phoenix-wiki (talk · contribs) 12:31, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

• Very good actually Being unfamilier with FTs I assumed they all had to be close to FA but aparently they don't. So very strong support--Phoenix-wiki (talk · contribs) 12:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

They don't all have to be Featured Content, some A-Class or GA's are acceptable. So is this a Support, Phoenix-wiki? Maxim_{(talk) (contributions)} 13:22, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

• I'll concede that the three non-featured lists do not have to become FL considering how new they are, but I think Roger Crozier Saving Grace Award and NHL Foundation Player Award should at least have history sections written for them. It only has to be one paragraph, and Mark Messier Leadership Award managed to have a history section in addition to its lead. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 00:26, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I've done a history section for the Crozier, but there's not enough info out there to have a separate section for Foundation. Maxim_{(talk) (contributions)} 16:55, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
    • I guess that's as much as I can reasonably expect. It defiantly meets the rest of the requirements no problem, so I'll support. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 01:19, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
• This has been on here long enough to close the debate, but I'd like to get the opinions of a couple more people not affiliated with any of the articles. Since promoting this would require including some non-FC articles, I'd like to make sure that we have solid agreement of support. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 15:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - So, the three un labelled are lists? So are they unable to be completed yet, and would get check marks? When would they be able to be improved to Featured List status? Judgesurreal777 17:02, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
  • They are lists, but they would be unable to get to FL status for at least 10 years as there have not been enough winners, nor is there enough history there. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:40, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Good job with these articles. Though, I'd like to make you aware of copyright issues for the pictures of the trophies. The images are borderline acceptable (or possibly not) per Commons:Derivative works. Many of these images are mine, and they were put up for deletion last spring. You can read the various comments and rationale by the closing admin here: Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:Hhof_campbell.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Hhof vezina.jpg and other deletion pages. Had I known about the derivative works issue, unlikely that I would have uploaded these. I wouldn't be as bothered if someone else uploaded pictures of the trophies (since I think the burden is on the uploader), but uneasy about keeping these. Also, I don't think they are the best quality pictures either. --Aude (talk) 04:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • If the images survived their vote for deletion and remain on the commons site, I would think that it turned out they were legal. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 05:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
    • The links above were not correct. They should be Commons:Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:Hhof_campbell.jpg, Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Hhof vezina.jpg. These survived as "Keep, at least for now." This is a grey area. Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Hhof masterton.jpg, commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Hhof prince of wales.jpg and a few others were never closed by an admin. Had I known, I would avoid uploading anything that falls within a grey area like these do. --Aude (talk) 08:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Support - Its complete, it meets the article quality requirements, and will make a great addition to the featured topics. The three ungraded articles should be maintained at a high quality until such time as they too can be featured. Judgesurreal777 23:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Pass - This has been here long enough without major disagreement. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 20:54, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Seasons of Lost

Main page	Articles
List of Lost episodes	Lost (season 1) Lost (season 2) Lost (season 3) - Lost (season 4)

I tried to nominate the fourth season's page for good article status, but it was failed within a few minutes because it will not begin airing until February, however it is worth noting that the page has 79 citations. Thanks to the other editors of the Lost WikiProject, including Scorpion0422 who wrote and nominated the first season's page and Wikipedical who nominated the main page. Self-nominate –thedemonhog talk • edits • box 03:35, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

• Support, with an attachment. As of this moment, I believe it is of featured topic status. However, parts are bound to change as more episodes are aired. So, I think this should get a preemptive requirement to maintain/improve the topic. For example, Season 4 would be required to be of FL status by January 1, 2009 (similar to how current FT's that do not meet the requirements are given until the beginning of 2008). Hurricanehink (talk) 03:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I think that we will be able to get season 4 to FL status by May. –thedemonhog talk • edits • box 03:56, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
    • If you'd want to push the date up, to like July 1, 2008 (half-way point in the year), that'd be cool. Hurricanehink (talk) 04:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
      • Sure. –thedemonhog talk • edits • box 04:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I believe that season 4 is excuseable because it will never reach GA or FL status (at the moment) due to the instability of the page, and I do believe that certain pages can be excused for reasons like that. As well, for those who don't like the title, we are open to changing it. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 03:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. Why doesn't this nomination include the main Lost page? I understand you are focusing on episodes, but I think you can certainly include the show in the topic about its episodes. Especially because it is of Featured quality. -- Wikipedical 04:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  • The main Lost article seems like it would be better as the main page for a topic that would include the DVD and music articles. –thedemonhog talk • edits 04:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
    • An article can be in a featured topic and a main page of another featured topic also. Look at Final Fantasy VIII and Hurricane Isabel. -- Wikipedical 11:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
      • In the talks about the topics for artists and their albums, we decided that a topic does not have to contain a "higher level" article than the main article. This topic falls within existing rules as a topic of lists, and the main Lost article does not have to be included. If Lost became a main article of a topic, that topic would include List of Lost episodes, as well as articles about the characters, themes, etc. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 15:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support - It can be a featured topic with the understanding that the 4th season can have a check mark until the season is complete, and then it has to be featured not long after. Judgesurreal777 18:31, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  • What does a check mark mean? –thedemonhog talk • edits 21:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
    • There is a clause in criteria which says that "Items that cannot achieve a high rating due to their limited subject matter have passed an individual audit for quality." The checkmark means that the article has been reviewed and consensus has been reached that it is an acceptable short article. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 02:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support My only problem was that the plot summaries were unreferenced but I've added episode citations. An excellently covered topic, congratulations on the articles.--Opark 77 12:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Meets the FT guidelines. -- Wikipedical 00:37, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support Why not? •97198 talk 06:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support Its all good. Gran² 20:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support great job. And after improving the DVD and music ones, add them along with the main Lost article. igordebraga ≠ 22:01, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Support per above, fantastic job! SergeantBolt 20:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
• Pass --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 20:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Supplementary nominations

1. Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Seasons of Lost/addition1
2. Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Seasons of Lost/addition2