Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/Good log/July 2015

Asher Vollmer[edit]

Asher Vollmer

3 articles

Puzzlejuice

Threes

This is a good topic nomination for the indie video game developer Asher Vollmer and his games. The two subarticles are his games that have garnered enough reliable, secondary source attention to warrant their own articles. It's a small topic, but I believe it meets the criteria, and will continue to expand as he makes more games over his lifetime. – czar 15:56, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support - good and complete. --Pres N 16:23, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am a bit skeptical of creating topics around people who just got kinda notable for 2 games. I propose having him instead be featured in the topic listed below here. Nergaal (talk) 03:20, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But there's no such thing as "kinda notable"—he and his games are the subject of significant, independent coverage. For now, the topic is complete. – czar 23:55, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support- covers the topic excellently. --Anar chyte 05:53, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support – I am a bit unsure about this article because, despite being sourced well, it looks a little...short to provide the main coverage of its topic. By the last time when I looked at it, it felt short for me.

EDIT: I am sorry, but, for me, I keep thinking of it as a stub, and I dislike having changed my vote from "Neutral" to "oppose", but, just, ignore me. Gamingforfun365 (talk) 09:56, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Gamingforfun365, what? If you're saying the main article is short, like a stub, it was peer reviewed as a good article, which requires breadth of coverage. What more information (sourced from reliable outlets) is the article or topic missing? If you don't have specific concerns, I don't see how it can "fall short" apart from not liking short articles. Some article subjects do not have reams of sources (or do not otherwise require going into detail on minutiae so as to conflate length and rigor). – czar 21:57, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As in...I want to learn more about him, such as his early life, his personal life, and/or other things, not just his career. I am sorry for not being more specific...you know what? Forget about me, for I am probably thinking wrongly, BUT I AM glad that you were not very upset with me. Gamingforfun365 (talk) 22:08, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I admit that it does have potential, but I just think that we could mention more about his personal life, such as his religion, his possible spouse, etc., not just about his career. Gamingforfun365 (talk) 23:20, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you think the article shouldn't be a Good Article, I suggest taking it to WP:GAN. And if that does happen, I would have to suspend this nomination until that GANs outcome is determined. GamerPro64 00:02, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Gamingforfun365, if no reliable source finds his personal life noteworthy enough to report on it, then we don't cover it. To cover Vollmer's religion and family situation would be a slew of original research (and, I'd say, undue weight) when he's known for being a small indie dev making small indie games. – czar 03:49, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"if no reliable source finds his personal life noteworthy enough to report on it, then we don't [need to] cover it.", and that would be an excuse – a likable excuse – , for these articles could not be mentioned any further because no other information could be reliably sourced, and not everything which has been secondarily sourced reliably would be original research because we are not using primary sources, although I do not see how talking a little bit about these persons other than just their careers would be undue when other such articles as Steve Jobs do it. Having said that, am I missing something about that? Entschuldigung, for this probably was just I as an autistic with creative differences, and I had ASSUMED that it could have been improved further, but, because this had probably achieved at maximum, I guess that I will change my vote to support. I regret causing some trouble by accident. Gamingforfun365 (talk) 04:44, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closed with a consensus to promote to Good Topic.--十八 22:09, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

English Heritage sites in Somerset[edit]

List of English Heritage properties in Somerset

13 articles

Cleeve Abbey

Dunster Butter Cross

Farleigh Hungerford Castle

Gallox Bridge, Dunster

Muchelney Abbey

Nunney Castle

Sir Bevil Grenville's Monument

Stanton Drew stone circles

Stoney Littleton Long Barrow

The Abbot's Fish House, Meare

The Tribunal, Glastonbury

Yarn Market, Dunster

The List of English Heritage properties in Somerset is an FL which lists all 12 sites that English Heritage manage within the county. Each of the articles about the sites is now a Good Article, therefore I think this meets the requirements for a Good Topic. If a brief description is needed part of the lead from the list could be included, but I am unclear where to put this.— Rod ^talk 18:37, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support - great job! You can just add the introductory paragraph to this page- stick <noinclude>Intro</noinclude> above the topic box on this nomination page, and the closer will put in on the actual topic page when they promote it. --Pres N 19:18, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've attempted a short intro paragraph above - if something longer is needed just let me know and I will add to it.— Rod ^talk 19:32, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support seems complete. Nergaal (talk) 03:22, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note Nominator will be away (at Glastonbury Festival) from 22 to 29 June and will not be able to respond to any comments during this time.— Rod ^talk 19:42, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Looks pretty open and shut: 12 properties, 12 GAs so my support is unconditional. One thing does occur to me for the FL – would it be worth expanding the introduction? You could discuss when the properties came under EH control and what they've been doing to promote research in the county. Just and idea, and like I said the Topic has my support. Nev1 (talk) 20:50, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support I've watched this list grow with admiration. A brilliant collection of work, nothing much more to say! Harrias ^talk 07:34, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support 12 properties, all of which are now GA, along with an FL. That's pretty clear cut to me. Miyagawa (talk) 12:03, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support - other than the ones I've worked on at GA, which might represent a conflict of interest...! ;) Hchc2009 (talk) 15:14, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Closed with a consensus to promote to Good Topic.--十八 21:47, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hrabri-class submarines[edit]

Hrabri-class submarines