Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/2007 Hugo Award for Best Dramatic Presentation, Short Form/archive1

2007 Hugo Award for Best Dramatic Presentation, Short Form
I'm nominating this topic as all of the episode articles for the 2007 award have been promoted to GA/FA, the drive started by the concurrent FACs of 200 and Doomsday. While I am aware the lead article is not a FL, this is because of the lifetime of the award (five years). However, the layout is unconfusing, and it is adequately cited. Thanks, Will (talk) 01:02, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose I am sorry, but I have to oppose not only because the lead article is not a FL, but also because the lead describes a (larger) different topic. Zginder(talk) (Contrib) 02:55, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, so split off the 2007 portion from the list. It's still not going to make FL though, due to limited subject matter. David Fuchs ( talk  ) 03:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The split off article might qualify for the special individual article audit clause. Zginder(talk) (Contrib) 03:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Article has been split off. Will (talk) 04:06, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * switching to comment. In order for me to support a little more needs to be added to the lead article and it needs to be peer reviewed. Zginder(talk) (Contrib) 21:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Support - I think that this topic meets current criteria, but barely; I would bulk up the lead article as much as possible, because even if it gets a check mark it should have some content, and it has very little at the moment. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:36, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose Because the lead article is not GA or FA. Juliancolton (Talk) 16:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Could you read the criteria before you oppose? David Fuchs ( talk  ) 16:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Support - per WP:WIAFT, not all aticles need to be GA/FA, especially if this isn't a reasonable request. In this case, giving FL status to the lead article would not be reasonable and could undermine the FL process, hence I give support for the current status of the topic. dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 02:13, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Support - per above, not all articles have to be of good or featured content. Two FAs, one audited article, and the rest GAs are sufficient. I agree with Dihydrogen Monoxide that the main article is far too short for a featured list nomination, and with this in mind, the individual audit is necessary and sufficient. Sephiroth BCR  ( Converse ) 06:47, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Hold off closing this nomination until the pear review is completed. Zginder(talk) (Contrib) 13:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose I don't think the lead article has a case for being an independent article by any stretch of the imagination. No reason for any year/award combination articles to ever exist. The minimal information there is is easily merged in other articles. Circeus (talk) 16:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose: there are only short article, the informations aren't many. MOJSKA   666  (msg) 17:04, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose — This is either not a unified topic as per #1b or the lead article is not introductory and summary as per #2. This collection of episodes is a bit random, the only thing they have in common with each other is the fact that they were all nominated for the same award. I do think that there is potential in a featured topic structured like this, but the lead article would have to spend more time talking about the episodes themselves, describing what the 2007 nominees have in common with each other and how this batch of nominees is notable from other years' nominees. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 20:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Close as no consensus --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 21:34, 18 March 2008 (UTC)