Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/Good log/December 2011

C and D class destroyers[edit]

C and D class destroyers

15 articles

HMS Kempenfelt

HMS Comet

HMS Crescent

HMS Crusader

HMS Cygnet

HMS Duncan

HMS Dainty

HMS Daring

HMS Decoy

HMS Diana

HMS Duncan finally got promoted a few hours ago so I present these two classes of British destroyers built in the early 1930s. Kempenfelt and Duncan were the flotilla leaders for each class and are listed first, the rest are alphabetical. All of the C-class ships were sold to Canada in the late 1930s as they were only a half-strength flotilla and did not work well as a tactical unit in the British system. A number of the ships survived World War II, but the survivors were scrapped after the end of the war. The British retained the D-class and most were sunk during the war, including one by a collision with a British battleship. The worn-out survivors were also scrapped after war's end.

Before I built the book for this topic, is there a problem using the template for ship names, forex {{HMS|Kempenfelt|I18|6}}, rather than the more traditional, if lengthier, style of link?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:26, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Books are exceedingly fragile. As far as I know, you can't use the special template, you have to use the traditional method or when a request to convert to PDF et. al. is made, the request will just break. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:09, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support The GAN page has been clogged lately with these babies, happy to see them promoted. I'd suggest taking the class to FA after the unified GT gets promoted, but that's your choice. Buggie111 (talk) 01:15, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Excellent work on these articles, Sturm. Parsecboy (talk) 11:50, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support But why are the C and D Class combined and not two separate topics? Makes me wonder why the A and B Class are not included. Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:26, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dunno, but the class articles for C and D, E and F, G and H are combined which is generally OK as there were very few changes in the designs between them.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:29, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Very comprehensive and complete. Glimmer721 ^talk 23:38, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Closed with consensus to promote. - GamerPro64 22:00, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Battlecruisers of Japan[edit]

Battlecruisers of Japan

9 articles

Kongō class

Kongō

Hiei

Haruna

Kirishima

Amagi class

Akagi

Design B-65 cruiser

All of the battlecruisers built and designed for Japan. The Kongo class battlecruisers were reconstructed into fast battleships before World War II and are often referred to as battleships. The Amagi class were cancelled due to the Washington Naval Treaty of 1922 and one ship was converted into an aircraft carrier. The B-65 design was never laid down due to World War II. I've only really worked on one of these, but I should be able to fill address any issues brought up during the review. I've structured the topic box deliberately to preserve class integrity.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:38, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support - looks good to me (Disclosure: I worked on Amagi class battlecruiser with Ed and Maralia). Parsecboy (talk) 03:13, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comments~~ Support

Some disambiguation links need checking here [1]

All fixed except air raid which provides the basic definition used as well as dab links.

Also some references appear to need attention here [2]

Fixed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:43, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

otherwise looks good Jim Sweeney (talk) 17:05, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If any topics will be merged upon this topic being promoted, note them here. Should only be one or two, but this way they're caught and handled. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 02:31, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Only the Kongo class as you're already aware.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:36, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Excellent work as always. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:21, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - very good work. PMG (talk) 15:11, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Please give all of the images used in the articles alt texts. Some articles, like the Amagi class article, already have alts. Others do not. Sven Manguard Wha? 12:56, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Not until they decide exactly what type of alt text is required.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:40, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Given that I wrote the majority of the Kongo-class articles, I'm hesitant to chime in here (major WP:COI) but for what it's worth, kudos to Sturm & Co. for more excellent work. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 20:46, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Closed with consensus to promote as good topic. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 18:30, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1975 Pacific hurricane season[edit]

1975 Pacific hurricane season

3 articles

Pacific Northwest hurricane

Hurricane Olivia

Contributor(s): YE, Hurricanehink

Well, here it is. The 1975 season is not a well-remember hurricane season. However, two very notable storms occurred. The 1975 Pacific Northwest hurricane formed and dissipated near Alaska. Hurricane Olivia left 30,000 homeless in Mexico, and 30 million in damage. Sadly, several people died.

Both of these storms have article. Before something asks, all of the article storms (save Agatha) can't get articles. In the case of Agatha, it could get one, but is not an obvious gap due to lack of info.

I hope you like it.

Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 23:08, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As the reviewer for the 1975 PHS article, I'm not voting, but commenting. The main article is a bit weak on prose, I'd like to see someone copyedit the article first, as the writing is just passable. HurricaneFan 25 14:45, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Some articles have dead links in them. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 06:44, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All should be fixed. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane

Comment The lede is a bit on the flimsy side..May I suggest expanding it to two paragraphs or so? Additionally, there are some deadlinks in the article, and in the "Storms" section, the storms' summaries are weak. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 16:03, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The lead is two paragraphs, good enough for an uneventful EPAC season, though I did add a tad more of content to the lead. The storm's summaries are similar in length to the 1973 Pacific hurricane season. Remember, this is EPHC era, so they are no discussions or TWO's. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 16:43, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem isn't the number of paragraph, it's the number of sentences (which is pretty scant). --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:47, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Added a couple more sentences. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 17:12, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More comments are needed here. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 22:12, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment From the position of an informed layperson (one who has lived through hurricanes but neither studies them nor writes about them on Wikipedia), the articles look fine. I'm reluctant to support however, because the fact that none of the regular Hurricane writers are expressing confidence in this. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:27, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I suppose I'll bring up the reason I haven't committed. Eventually, can there be a good topic on every season? Should the fact that the topic meets the bare minimum mean it be promoted? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 06:12, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- I agree, more articles are needed for the topic before I would support. – TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 12:27, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - TA, no more articles can be made, so that's not actionable, and Hink, I don't see why not? YE ^Pacific ^Hurricane 15:16, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - That was more of an open question. But, seeing as it meets the criteria, I'll support this becoming a good topic. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:32, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support While I would like to see more topics, it is not a requirement, so... I support this topic. – TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 23:53, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support The articles that are there are good, and some seasons (thankfully for everyone but our excellent Hurricane writers team) just don't produce many storms worth mentioning. BTW, if you're looking for a larger topic, why not shoot for a "Pacific Hurricanes of the 1970s" topic? Sven Manguard Wha? 05:48, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- A larger topic would be List of Pacific hurricane seasons which would include articles from 1949-2011. But yea, do to high notability requirements, many storms during this time period can't get articles. My next two topic I will be releasing will have more articles, however. YE ^Pacific ^Hurricane 15:46, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually, would that work for topic rules? The main article would be List of Pacific hurricane seasons, but if that were hypothetically featured, would such a list be acceptable? You know, some seasons with one or no sub-articles would not be part of a topic until the entire "Lit of Pacific hurricane seasons" was done. It'd be great to be able to do "List of Pacific hurricane seasons (1970-1979)", and then add to the topic as the 60s or 80s was done. Imagine the same for the World Series, if it was "1980-1989 World Series" (since I doubt anyone would get all 100+ world series articles done anytime soon). --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:41, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Heh. I was going to say that but I forgot. ;) HurricaneFan 25 — 17:05, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Well, one article can not be a part of more than four topics, so I am afraid it would not meet the rules. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 19:30, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        I don't understand your argument. First, I don't think there is a rule that an article can't be part of four topics (I see nothing on WP:WIAFT), and second, no article would be part of more than four topics (AFIAK), sans "List of Pacific hurricane seasons". I think this is a discussion better for FT questions, so I'll ask there. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:34, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Hmm, I remember reading somewhere that an article can not be part of more than four topics. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 19:40, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Closed with consensus to promote. - GamerPro64 18:20, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brummer class cruisers[edit]

Brummer class cruisers

3 articles

SMS Brummer

SMS Bremse

Another class of German light cruisers, these were built around turbines built in Germany for Russia that were confiscated at the outbreak of World War I. Parsecboy (talk) 13:02, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support-Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:15, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I see no reason not to support. Jim Sweeney (talk) 14:09, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Another round of excellent work from Parsec. - DSachan (talk) 02:58, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As with the Coln class below, these look good, but need alt texts before I'm willing to support. Sven Manguard Wha? 10:14, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Closed with consensus to promote. - GamerPro64 20:33, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]