I'm nominating this topic as a featured article removal candidate per criterion 6, which says the following;
"Each article should be of a good quality, including references. Not all articles need be featured class, but several should be. The rest must be all Good Articles or A class except where achieving such a class is impossible."
While there are two FAs there, the 3 other articles aren't of at least GA / A quality, and I feel that they could achieve such a class if given work. Remove per my reasoning.
LuciferMorgan20:30, 7 April 2007 (UTC)reply
Wait - I know that things are supposed to stay here for 14 days, but lets make sure that it stays for at least that time, to give the Campus article time to go through GAC, and hopefully academics at least nom'd. If we can get all but spartans up to ga+ before the review ends, I'd say keep, with no prejudice against renominating it for removal if spartans doesn't get improved pretty soon after. --
PresN18:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)reply
I think it's fair to wait for any articles currently at GAC. Why remove its FT status if it'll be nominated again in only a week?
Jay3218319:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)reply
I have also put the Academics article up for peer review. Please give me any feedback
there. As for the Spartans athletics article, I'll see if I can work on it this week.
Lovelac708:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep The Articles "Campus of Michigan State University", "Michigan State Spartans" and "Michigan State University academics" are current
good article candidates. Wait to see What happends with the articles before removing the MSU section.
De-list if at least one of the other articles isn't either a "Good Article" or in a review by the 21st (14 days after de-list nomination). I think that the featured topic idea is really great, but, even counting that the non-recognised articles are nicely done... they need to be held to the same standard as the other topics. —
ScouterSig14:34, 17 April 2007 (UTC)reply
I would like to get all of these to FA. In the mean time, we have two three articles in GAC. Feel free to review them if you have time.
Lovelac723:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)reply
Closing discussion as keep - This topic may now have some issues with gaps, but the original reason for FTRC nomination was that there were not enough GAs and FAs. Since then articles have been promoted, and consensus seems to agree that the issue has been dealt with. --
Arctic Gnome (
talk •
contribs)
06:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Remove - I was about to nominate this myself. It's missing five movies, which makes an obvious gap in the topic. The missing movies are all start-class, so they are ineligible to be added to the topic. --
Arctic Gnome (
talk •
contribs)
18:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)reply
It COULD be kept if it was refactored as "Halloween original trilogy" series, and if the main article was improved, though.
Circeus18:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)reply
I don't know if "original trilogy" would work with this. It would be an artificial title given to the first three films that (as far as I know) none of the people involved in the films actually used themselves.
Dmoon118:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Remove It's a shame it has to be removed, but the film articles from 4 onwards aren't that wonderful. It'd be great if DMoon1 wished to work on the other Halloween films sometime in the future - he did a splendid job on the first three.
LuciferMorgan10:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC)reply
After looking at the topic I asked mysele, WHy is this a featured topic? Only 1/3 of the articles are good or featured. Most of the others have no rating which makes me wonder how this got passed in the first place. In my opnion, at least half should by Good/FA.
The Placebo Effect21:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Speedy Strong remove — it was an early promotion, sort of like "brilliant prose" with FAs. Besides, the two primary articles are already included in the FF games topic. — Deckiller02:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)reply
The fact that the two primary articles are already included in another topic is not grounds for removal. The FT system was designed to allow subtopics to branch off of top-level topics, just like this does. Also, there is no such thing as "speedy remove" (or a "speedy promote" for that matter). All topics deserve thier two weeks so that interested parties can make thier points. Who knows, maybe some user would be willing to get all of these articles up to GA status within the next few days. --
Arctic Gnome (
talk •
contribs)
04:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC)reply
I understand that it is not grounds for removal; I was using it as a seperate point. The editors normally associated with this article (myself not included) have for the most part left. I'm going on Wikibreak due to stress, so I won't be able to work on them either. The rest of the Final Fantasy project seems to be busy working on other issues right now, especially with a lot of other issues presenting themselves. However, the "speedy remove" comment was not for this reason; it was to emphasise my wrongdoing for nominating the FT several months ago in the first place. In other words, I did not mean it to be taken literally. I'll change it to strong remove instead. — Deckiller04:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC)reply
As a member of
WP:FF,
WP:SE, and
WP:VG, all of whom claim this topic as their own, it hurts to say this, but remove. It does stick out like a sore thumb when looking at the FT page, doesn't it. --
PresN05:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Remove Agree with nom - there simply isn't enough high quality pages to warrant status as a featured topic.
Qjuad05:55, 3 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Weak Remove - This doesn't quite cut it, too many B-class articles. It's too bad, because many of those articles are moderatly long and referenced. It wouln't take too much work to get these up to snuff. --
Arctic Gnome (
talk •
contribs)
04:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Remove I'm going to have to agree with the above and say there are too many articles that aren't GAs or FAs for this to be an FT.
Jay3218320:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)reply