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

A workshop session with the Australian Paralympic Committee before the 2012 London Games led to creation of a series of articles on Paralympic classification. I was sceptical about them, but it turns out that they were right and I was wrong; the classification articles proved more popular than the articles on sports or athletes, as people turned to the Wikipedia for explanation of what they were seeing during the Games. Articles on Winter Sports classification were created later in 2012, and now they form a new Good Topic. Because Para-alpine and Para-Nordic share classifications, this topic has an unusual (but far from unique) double-barrelled lead. -- Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:12, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Small note, a reference in LW12 is displaying a reference date error. ResMar 15:35, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a really tricky topic to follow. I strongly suggest creating a short para to present/introduce the topic as per this. Nergaal (talk) 05:01, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have nowhere to put it until it becomes a good topic, but it would read something like this:
Para-alpine skiing classification and Para-Nordic skiing classification use a common classification system for disability skiing sports. The classification system is designed to ensure fair competition between skiers with different types of disabilities. They are grouped into three general types: standing, blind and sitting. The first classification systems for skiing were developed in Scandinavia in the 1960s, with early systems designed for skiers with amputations. As special equipment was developed, it was extended to allow participation by skiers with spinal cord injuries. The goal of the early classification systems was functional but ended up being medical classification systems. In more recent times the classification system has evolved to become an evidence-based system as opposed to a performance-based system so as not to punish elite athletes whose performance makes them appear in a higher class alongside competitors who train less. The classifications for skiing are LW1, LW2, LW3, LW4, LW5/7, LW6/8, and LW9, where LW stands for Locomotor Winter. There are also three sit-ski classifications: LW10, LW11 and LW12, and three classifications for blind athletes: B1, B2 and B3.

This does not explain how the 10+ categories are linked together. To non-experts the topic appears as a random collection of letters and numbers. Nergaal (talk) 00:22, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes, but the meanings of the classifications are the subject of the articles. Usually, the non-expert sees the event at the Winter Paralympics on TV, and uses the Wikipedia to find out more about what the classifications mean. I've added a bit more to the text. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:53, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Seems to pass all GT criteria. Good work.--ɱ (talk · vbm) 18:35, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delegate Comment - There's been only been three separate commentators on this nomination with only one voting for a Support. There needs to be more discussion made for a consensus. GamerPro64 14:23, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support All the articles in the field are of Ga status. This seems like a Good Topic to me. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 02:06, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose inclusion of more than one sport. Right now you have nordic and alpine skiing, and snowboarding. For now I would suggest just do nordic skiing as a lead article, then just get an article titled "Winter Paralympic Games classifications" which would include the other two, PLUS the other four or so sports. The structure is getting messy by adding more than one sport. Also, the intro paragraph should kinda focus on how up to ~4 only legs are covered, 5-8 arms, and B are vision ones. Nergaal (talk) 22:27, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As explained in the snowboarding article, snowboarding is considered alpine skiing by the IOC and IPC. The double lead article is because Para-Alpine and Para-Nordic share the same classifications. The next article in the hierarchy is Disability sport classification, of which this is a subtopic. I don't see the need for an intro paragraph at all; none of my other Good Topics have one. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:23, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate you working with the reviewers. Nergaal (talk) 02:44, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support with single lead article- I'd rather see the lead article as Para-alpine skiing classification, with Para-nordic skiing classification as one of the child articles like snowboarding. I'd support either way, though. I've added your intro paragraph onto this page the way the nominations template now puts it when you make a new nomination; the closer will put it on the actual topic page when they promote. Could you add a bit about snowboarding being a subcat of alpine skiing, though? --Pres N 19:28, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I don't mind making Para-nordic one of the child articles like snowboarding. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:11, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Closed with a consensus to promote to Good Topic. And might I add, long over due. Looking at what has been discussed, and looking specifically over Nergaal's oppose, as long as snowboarding is considered alpine skiing by the IOC and IPC, there's no reason why it shouldn't be in this topic. I am also going along with PresN's suggestion to have a single lead article, endorsed by the nominator, Hawkeye7.--十八 08:17, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Beyoncé studio albums[edit]

Beyoncé studio albums

6 articles

Dangerously in Love

B'Day ^(subtopic)

I Am... Sasha Fierce

4

Beyoncé

Contributor(s): Adabow, Efe, JennKR, Jivesh boodhun

Complete list of studio albums released by Beyoncé as a solo artist --Adabow (talk) 22:18, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support All of the articles look good, and they're all GAs. Comprehensive in scope.--ɱ (talk · vbm) 03:10, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Nothing bad to point out. Well-elaborated articles. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 13:44, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support All of the articles in this topic are at least GA. Great work. — HĐ (talk) 10:16, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Wow, I cant see any possible reason to oppose this. Great work! All About That Bass (A word?? / Stalking not allowed...) 12:09, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Closed with a consensus to promote to Good Topic. - GamerPro64 04:05, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Briarcliff Manor, New York[edit]

Contributor(s): Ɱ

All articles are of Good or Featured status and meet all other GT criteria. I chose these articles as they are the only notable topics related to Briarcliff Manor. I created eight of these articles and improved the other ten, all of which were start- or stub- class when I first edited them. I later became a member of the Briarcliff Manor-Scarborough Historical Society in order to coordinate efforts; their photographs, maps, and other archives have been very helpful, and my internet research has likewise been of good use to them.--ɱ (talk · vbm) 00:25, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest creating a short para to introduce the topic as per this. Nergaal (talk) 00:24, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, done.--ɱ (talk · vbm) 02:49, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I was asked to comment here via a review exchange at the reward board. I've never commented on a good topic nominee before, and was previously not very familiar with how it worked, though having looked at the criteria and this list of articles I am satisfied that each of the good topic criteria has been met. Well done. Freikorp (talk) 11:58, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support. This is my first FT comment, but from what I see, all the articles in this topic are good or featured articles. Great work! Epic Genius (talk) 23:46, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support All of the topics in this category are at least GA class. The high classes of the articles should make this topic a good topic. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 23:22, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ Pace University is not included. Nergaal (talk) 22:30, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quite frankly, you are ridiculous to completely oppose such a nomination just because you think it's missing a single article. How about suggesting it instead? Anyway, I've been a village resident for most of my life, so I can tell you that Pace University has very little impact or significance in Briarcliff. Any notable aspects are already covered in the article Briarcliff College. Besides, the article on Pace University is far too oriented towards its New York City and Pleasantville campuses; the Briarcliff one is absolutely tiny and doesn't even have a single classroom. Pace University has no place on this list.--ɱ (talk · vbm) 04:37, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that is the main reason for FTC, to make sure that the topics include all the relevant articles. Looking more closely though, whatever PU does in the cillage is covered by the college article. Support. Nergaal (talk) 02:51, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closed with a consensus to promote to Good Topic.--十八 22:51, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Para-skiing classification[edit]

Beyoncé studio albums[edit]

Briarcliff Manor, New York[edit]

Supplementary nominations[edit]