Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/Iowa-class battleships

Iowa class battleships

 * Major contributors: user:TomStar81, user:Bellhalla, user:MBK004, user:Maralia, user:Cla68, user:FTC Gerry, user:Bschorr, user:Climie.ca, User:The ed17, and other Ship and Military History project members

After nearly three and a half years of work I am proud to present to Wikipedia the first attempt at a Featured Topic nom for ships, in this case the legendary Iowa-class. This is my first nomination for Featured Topic, so I apologize in advance if I goofed on anything. I state clearly for the record two important points that must be addressed with this nom: First, several of the articles are at the moment undergoing peer reviews. These reviews will not alter the outcome of the articles quality, nor do they threaten the stability or FA rank of any articles in question. The peer reviews are opened by me on a yearly basis to ensure that any changes in criteria since the last formal review are incorporated into the articles. Secondly, I am officially a college senior now, and managed for the first time ever to line up 15 credit hours, but the classes and work load at senior level are intense. I therefore want to explicitly state here that if I appear slow to respond to requests, comments, or opposes have patience, it is likely that school work has me tied up.
 * Support as nominator. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:21, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Support. I was the primary editor on USS Iowa turret explosion, but was not involved except for some minor editing in most of the other articles for this topic.  TomStar81 has done really excellent work in leading the construction of this topic and the articles included in it and I fully support its inclusion as a featured topic. Cla68 (talk) 06:37, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Support - (Disclosure, I collaborated with Tom on Illinois and Kentucky) -MBK004 06:43, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Support - Wow, can't see anything to oppose here, very comprehensive! Skinny87 (talk) 07:56, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Support — Although Tom has included me in the above nomination as a major contributor, I think that's giving me too much credit. Nonetheless, I believe this meets the FTC criteria. (But shouldn't the topic be pluralized?) — Bellhalla (talk) 13:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * (Yes I think it should be too, I'll be bold and make the change - rst20xx (talk) 12:04, 10 February 2009 (UTC))
 * Comment - I cannot, because it seems Nergaal previously made that page :@ Can an admin move this page to Featured topic candidates/Iowa class battleships please? rst20xx (talk) 12:06, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! rst20xx (talk) 16:15, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You are welcome. TomStar81 (Talk) 16:16, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Support - agree with Bellhalla, with the difference that I know he is giving me too much credit, but this definitely meets all of the FT criteria. Cheers, — Ed 17  (Talk /  Contribs)  18:19, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't United States Naval Gunfire Support debate be included too? Nergaal (talk) 18:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I made a conscious decision to omit that article for two reasons: first, the core articles here are those related directly to the battleships. In real terms that means all six battleships, their weaponry, and the class article. The gunfire support debate involves the battleships, but is not exclusively concerned with the battleships, and on top of that there are surviving FAC issues (including NPOV complaints) that have yet to be addressed. In light of this I felt that it would be best to omit that article until the complaints were adequately addressed. In real terms, the article is not actually missing from the set: the class article contains a summary of the debate including the key points from the debate article, and this allows for an overview of the debate without bring an article with issues into the set. In fact, the entire debate originated on this page and was spun out so that the Arleigh Burke and DDX-class articles would have a link to a dedicated debate page rather than have to link to a subsection of the Iowa-class. Having said all this, if consensus is to include the article, I will add it to the lineup. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:08, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Support, but you should note that the debate article can easily pass GA criteria so it can be technically added quite soon (only problem being the apparent dislike of GAs inside the MilHist project). Nergaal (talk) 19:50, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Support I think that United States Naval Gunfire Support debate should be included at a latter date, but this topic is fine for now. Zginder 2009-02-09T19:12Z (UTC)
 * In time it will be. This FT nom is being orchestrated in part on the page User:TomStar81/Iowa class battleship featured topic work group, and on that page we have identified a few pages - this one included - that we aim to add at some point in the future. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:07, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Cam (Chat) 23:55, 9 February 2009 (UTC) DISCLOSURE: I performed technical and prose copyediting on several of the articles in the FTC
 * Support - meets WP:WIAFT.-- TRU CO   503  01:54, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Bernstein2291 (talk) 03:56, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Support These are all fantastic articles Nick-D (talk) 05:25, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Involved Support - heavens, this has been a long time coming. Confident it meets FT criteria. Maralia (talk) 05:58, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Support - well done! rst20xx (talk) 11:49, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Support - per everybody else. Great work, all! Parsecboy (talk) 13:02, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Close with consensus to promote - rst20xx (talk) 21:27, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Supplementary nominations

 * 1) Featured topic candidates/Iowa class battleships/addition1