Featured and good topics in Wikipedia A featured topic is a collection of inter-related articles that are of a good quality (though are not necessarily featured articles).A good topic is a collection of inter-related articles that are of a good quality (though are not necessarily featured articles) with a less stringent quality threshold than a featured topic. This page is for the nomination of potential featured and good topics. See the featured and good topic criteria for criteria on both types of topic. If you would like to ask any questions about your topic and the featured/good topic process before submitting it, visit Wikipedia talk:Featured and good topic candidates. Before nominating a topic, nominators may wish to receive feedback by listing it at Featured and good topic questions. Nominators must be sufficiently familiar with the subject matter and sources to deal with objections during the FTC/GTC process. If you nominate something you have worked on, note it as a self-nomination. Nominators who are not significant contributors to the articles of the topic should consult regular editors of the articles prior to nomination. Nominators are expected to respond positively to constructive criticism and to make an effort to address objections promptly. The featured and good topics director, GamerPro64, or his delegates Sturmvogel 66 and Aza24, determine the timing of the process for each nomination. For a nomination to be promoted to FT or GT status, consensus must be reached for a group to be promoted to featured or good topic status. If enough time passes without objections being resolved, nominations will be removed from the candidates topic and archived. To contact the FTC director and delegates, please leave a message on the FTC talk page, or use the {{@FTC}} notification template elsewhere. You may want to check previous archived nominations first: |
Good content: Featured and good topic tools: |
Nomination procedureTo create a new nomination use the form below (e.g., Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/Saffron/archive1) and click the "Create new nomination" button. Once the nomination page is created, remember to transclude it in the appropriate section below, to leave nomination templates on the talk pages of the articles nominated for the topic. For detailed instructions on how to nominate topics or add articles to existing topics, see Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/Nomination procedure. Supporting and objectingPlease review all the articles of the nominated topic with the featured and good topic criteria in mind before deciding to support or oppose a nomination.
For a topic to be promoted to featured or good topic status, consensus must be reached that it meets the criteria. If enough time passes without objections being resolved (at least one week), nominations will be removed from the candidates list and archived. Nominations will stay here for ten days if there is unanimous consent, or longer if warranted by debate. |
Featured topic nominations
Burnley F.C.
Burnley Football Club is an English professional association football club based in Burnley, Lancashire, that was founded on 18 May 1882.
| discuss 9 articles Burnley F.C.
| ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
|
- Contributor(s): WA8MTWAYC
I have worked on this topic for the majority of my Wikipedia career, and I believe it meets the criteria of a featured topic: 2 FAs, 2GAs and 5FLs. --WA8MTWAYC (talk) 11:55, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
- Support: Main article, numerous supporting lists, stadium and history, all at GA or better, and the majority Featured. All share a category or supercategory, and all are linked by a navbox. It looks like it checks all the boxes! It'll be a pain keeping it up as new seasons come and go, but hopefully there are enough fans to see to it. Great work! -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 14:16, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
- Support A fine topic of articles and lists. Great work! NapHit (talk) 14:13, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
- Support: Brilliant work! Lemonade51 (talk) 19:43, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
- Support - I made a few inputs on the main Burnley article (and my Dad was a Burnley fan!). Paul W (talk) 08:42, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
- Support - all looks good to me! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:04, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
Tour Championship (snooker)
The Tour Championship is an annual snooker tournament, held for the top eight players on the World Snooker Tour for that season. First run in 2019, the event is one of the most prestigious on the calendar.
| discuss 4 articles Tour Championship
| ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
|
- Contributor(s): Lee Vilenski
All articles are GA or above, two are FAs. --Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:39, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
- Weak Support: The scope is clear, the articles are at high quality, and they're joined by a category & navbox. It's a bit irregular that 2022 Tour Championship already exists but is a stub and not included in this nomination, but since it hasn't happened yet, there isn't much to say about it. That article clearly needs to be part of this proposal once the event occurs, but I guess it can be left out for now? Interested to hear other editors' thoughts. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 14:20, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
- Going to be a perennial problem. We usually have a time-out for being demoted after a new article is suitable to pass - see Wikipedia:Featured and good topic criteria#Future retention periods. No doubt I'll promote once the event happens next year. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:40, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
- Support
Commentare you sure the live snooker data being cited is reliable? Nevertheless,I congratulate you largely on a good number of featured articles for this topic, of which all the articles for are well-written! --K. Peake 09:54, 2 July 2021 (UTC)- Do you mean livescores.worldsnookerdata.com/, Kyle Peake? That is the official scores website by the World Snooker Tour (at Wst.tv it directs to the page under scores). Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:33, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
- Support - seems to me that the criteria are met. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:48, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
- Support - Topic is complete as of now and there are an appropriate number of FA and GA articles. Good work! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 03:47, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
- Support, appears complete and meets the FT 50% requirement. I'm fairly confident that Lee will get the 2022 article to GA/FA once that year's tournament is held, so no concerns about, uh, future completion? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:54, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
- Support Complete topic, which has had a lot of great work put into it. I have no doubt the nominator will get future events up to standard so they can be included in the topic. NapHit (talk) 14:15, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
- Support – looks to me like it meets the criteria. – zmbro (talk) 15:26, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
- Support - looks good to me! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:56, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
Good topic nominations
Protected cruisers of France
| discuss 43 articles Protected cruisers of France
| ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
|
This topic comprises all of the protected cruisers built by France, over the course of the late 1880s and through the early 1900s. I started working on these articles in March 2020, so the project is one pandemic old (though I imagine this GTC will end first, so there's that bit of cheer for your day). In any event, thanks to all who take the time to review the topic! Parsecboy (talk) 21:02, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
- Support: A magnificent piece of work! All the protected cruisers at GA or better, joined by a navbox and category. Well done! -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 23:05, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
EFL League One play-offs
The EFL League One play-offs are a series of play-off matches contested by the association football teams finishing from third to sixth in EFL League One, the third tier of English football, and are part of the English Football League play-offs. As of 2021, the play-offs comprise two semi-finals, where the team finishing third plays the team finishing sixth, and the team finishing fourth plays the team finishing fifth, each conducted as a two-legged tie. The winners of the semi-finals progress to the final which is contested at Wembley Stadium.
- Contributor(s): The Rambling Man, ChrisTheDude, EchetusXe
Comprehensive topic covering every third tier English football play-off final. --The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:41, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
- Support - excellent work, very impressive! WA8MTWAYC (talk) 08:26, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- Support - A magnificent project MWright96 (talk) 17:03, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- Support: An extremely impressive body of work! Comprehensive coverage, all at quality, with a navbox and shared supercategory. Well done! -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 12:58, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- Support Excellent work on a thorough and complete topic. NapHit (talk) 10:20, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
- Support Just awesome. --Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 11:53, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
EFL League Two play-offs
The EFL League Two play-offs are a series of play-off matches contested by the association football teams finishing from fourth to seventh in EFL League Two, the fourth tier of English football, and are part of the English Football League play-offs. As of 2021, the play-offs comprise two semi-finals, where the team finishing third plays the team finishing sixth, and the team finishing fourth plays the team finishing fifth, each conducted as a two-legged tie. The winners of the semi-finals progress to the final which is contested at Wembley Stadium.
| discuss 36 articles EFL League Two play-offs
| ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
|
- Contributor(s): The Rambling Man, ChrisTheDude, Amakuru
Comprehensive topic covering every fourth tier English football play-off final. --The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:41, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
- Support - very impressive, excellent work! WA8MTWAYC (talk) 08:25, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- Support - A magnificent project MWright96 (talk) 17:04, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- Support: An extremely impressive body of work! Comprehensive coverage, all at quality, with a navbox and shared supercategory. Well done! -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 13:00, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- Support Excellent work on a thorough and complete topic. NapHit (talk) 10:21, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
- Support per above and I'll avoid the temptation to make a joke about a certain football team aiming to be in next year's entry in this topic. --Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 08:54, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
- Support - A brilliant project that would of taken a long time to build here. HawkAussie (talk) 10:35, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Inuit clothing
Traditional Inuit clothing is a complex system of cold-weather garments–a parka, trousers, mitts, inner footwear and boots–historically made from animal hide and fur.
| discuss 3 articles Inuit clothing
| ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
|
- Contributor(s): Premeditated Chaos
With the main article being an FA, and the two split-off subtopics as GAs, I believe this meets the criteria for a GT. --♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:58, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- Support: Huh! What an interesting topic! It's got the quality, as well as the category and navbox. Hard to say exactly what the scope of articles ought to be on this one, but these second-level articles (History, Research) seem to outrank articles about specific garments (Amauti, Mukluk, etc.), and I can see limiting the topic here. If other articles are subsequently split off at the same level (e.g. Spiritual significance of Inuit clothing), then they would need to be taken to GA and added here. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 13:28, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
Dua Lipa (album)
Dua Lipa is the eponymous debut studio album by English singer Dua Lipa, released on 2 June 2017. The album was met with generally favorable reviews from critics and was a commercial sleeper hit. The album produced eight singles and three promotional singles. The album was reissued in 2018, subtitled the Complete Edition, and added four of Lipa's previously-released collaborative singles while it produced two additional promotional singles.
| discuss 16 articles Dua Lipa
| ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
|
- Contributor(s): LOVI33, Coolmarc, Paparazzzi
I have worked to bring the topic of Dua Lipa's debut album for about a year now. Thanks you to Kyle Peake, Shoot for the Stars and Ashleyyoursmile for the amazing GA reviews. Also, thanks to Coolmarc and Paparazzzi for bringing "New Love" and "New Rules" to GA status. I believe all topics are proper GA articles. I have gone through and reviewed all of them as many of them we're passed a while ago. --LOVI33 21:49, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
- Support - Great work on the articles, all of them are nicely done. --Ashleyyoursmile! 05:50, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
- Support
Commentsthe leads of the articles should only use "the song" for consistency, rather than variating between that term and "the single". Also, musically should be written before any genres listed under comp and refs that have various citations should not wikilink the same publisher twice on them since they are grouped together. About the sources, The Young Folks is unreliable due to being created by two people and I'm not sure about The Groove Cartel and BreatheHeavy, as the former appears to be a blog of sorts while the latter seems to be a forum with lack of proper staff. However,it was an honour to help review a good portion of these articles and they are very well-written! --K. Peake 07:49, 21 July 2021 (UTC)- Thanks for helping me with all the articles and for commenting here Kyle Peake! I have fixed all the issues. However, I did keep a The Young Folks source in "New Rules" that is an interview with one of the songwriters Emily Warren. I hope that is okay to use and let me know if anything else needs to be fixed. LOVI33 04:51, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
- Support: Album and all notable tracks at GA quality, all joined by a navbox and a supercategory, as is common with album topics. I'll note that if someone ever splits off articles about the various tours associated with this album, then they'll need to be brought to GA and added to this topic. Good work! -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 12:53, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
- Support
Commentsabout the sources, I Want my pop culture doesn't strike me as a reliable source, despite the fact the writer claims to have a journalism degree, the blog has not a single editor and she has no other experience in writing for other companies/sources. Tunebat on "No Lie" is not a reliable source as they don't provide sheet music. I'm always on the fence regarding Celebmix, but I can't really make a huge push for it. There are sources I never heard about such as ColoRising, so I don't have a strong opinion on it.Nevertheless, great job on the articles. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 08:37, 22 July 2021 (UTC)- Thank you for the comments MarioSoulTruthFan! I have removed all the sources you mentioned. I hope everything looks okay now. LOVI33 14:07, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
- Support Great work! Damian Vo (talk) 10:14, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
- Strong support This would be an incredible topic. Sunrise In Brooklyn ✉ 03:43, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
Romanian Eurovision Song Contest entries (2nd supplementary nomination)
This topic is already featured. It is being re-nominated to add additional items. See Wikipedia talk:Featured topics/Romanian Eurovision Song Contest entries for discussions of the topic's previous nominations. The additional items are:
| discuss 22 articles Romanian Eurovision Song Contest entries
| ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
|
- Contributor(s): Cartoon network freak
Getting the process going as "Amnesia" became a Good Article on 12 July 2021. Cartoon network freak (talk) 12:44, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
- Support: Straightforward addition of the latest entry. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 14:13, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
- Support Great as always, just a new entry. Doesn't change much. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 12:24, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
- Support Obvious addition. Good work. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:58, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
- Support enjoyed reviewing this article and would've been even happier if I knew it was for this topic at the time! --K. Peake 07:51, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
- Support. Aoba47 (talk) 16:40, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
- Support Great work! Damian Vo (talk) 10:12, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
- Support Straightforward addition of the most recent entry, which is now also a GA. Grk1011 (talk) 13:24, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
Black Mirror
Black Mirror (2011–2019) is a British anthology television series created by Charlie Brooker. Across its 22 standalone episodes and the interactive film Black Mirror: Bandersnatch, it explores science fiction technologies and dystopias to make commentary on contemporary social issues. The series began on the British network Channel 4 before being commissioned by the online streaming platform Netflix. It garnered critical acclaim and, according to some commentators, led to a repopularisation of the anthology format.
| discuss 26 articles Black Mirror
| ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
|
This has been a project of mine for more than half of my time on Wikipedia, beginning with work on "Nosedive" in August 2017, the GA nom in September 2017 and the successful promotion in January 2018. However, the first entry in this list came from Gabriel Yuji, who took "White Bear" to GA. I owe a great deal to many editors and reviewers, including those who are no longer active. Some such people include Adamstom.97, Alex 21, Aoba47, Chairhandlers, Ed! Hameltion, J Milburn, Kingsif, Masem, The Rambling Man, Some Dude From North Carolina, Somethingwickedly and a vanished user whose name I will omit but not forget. (If you've been pinged here and don't know why, it's likely a GA review you did.) — Bilorv (talk) 13:25, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
- Support: We've got the main article, the FL list of episodes, the FL list of awards, and all of the episodes and film at GA or better, and it's all tied together by a category and a navbox. My only comment is that some other image would probably be more illustrative than a photo of the series creator? I suppose we're wanting to avoid the fair-use title card of the show. There's also this PD imitation image that someone has made; is that trademark infringement? Anyway, well done to all who contributed! -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 14:25, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
- @Bryanrutherford0: I think that imitation is fair game—it is a little bit different to the actual logo (which could be ineligible for copyright, but I've been erring on the side that it is copyrighted), but I think it's an improvement. How does it look at its current size? And maybe I can get a more expert opinion on whether the original logo is PD somewhere. — Bilorv (talk) 15:18, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
- Yeah, I think that's a big improvement, if we think it passes legal and policy tests. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 15:29, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
- Yep, from commons:Commons:Village pump/Copyright#Black Mirror logo (permalink) it looks like the original logo is copyrighted, but the imitation is fine. — Bilorv (talk) 14:24, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
- Yeah, I think that's a big improvement, if we think it passes legal and policy tests. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 15:29, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
- @Bryanrutherford0: I think that imitation is fair game—it is a little bit different to the actual logo (which could be ineligible for copyright, but I've been erring on the side that it is copyrighted), but I think it's an improvement. How does it look at its current size? And maybe I can get a more expert opinion on whether the original logo is PD somewhere. — Bilorv (talk) 15:18, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
- Support - It is truly amazing to see that everything from this series has now become either a GA or FA. Great work! 👍 Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 14:45, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
- Support: Wonderful work with this series! Aoba47 (talk) 17:42, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
- Comment First, huge congraulations for the huge work on getting on these articles up to GA+. The only query I have is if that image being used in the topic is allowed? Is the spoof logo not any kind of copyright or trademark infringement? Not an image expert, but wanted to double check. Spy-cicle💥 Talk? 14:37, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
- It's not a copyright violation because it's a very simple image and doesn't meet the threshold of originality. And I think it can't be a trademark infringement because its purpose is the same as in a large number of GT/FTs e.g. Chartjackers, Doctor Who (season 1)—it's not using the (approximated) logo in a misleading way (e.g. to sell merchandise), just for educational/illustrative purposes. — Bilorv (talk) 19:49, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
- Ah I see, thanks for clarification. Great job on this, Support. Regards Spy-cicle💥 Talk? 19:50, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
- It's not a copyright violation because it's a very simple image and doesn't meet the threshold of originality. And I think it can't be a trademark infringement because its purpose is the same as in a large number of GT/FTs e.g. Chartjackers, Doctor Who (season 1)—it's not using the (approximated) logo in a misleading way (e.g. to sell merchandise), just for educational/illustrative purposes. — Bilorv (talk) 19:49, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
- Support - excellent work, no reason not to support. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:42, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
- Support of course. Great work, great collection. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 18:50, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
- Support - Great work on the articles, all of them are nicely done. --Ashleyyoursmile! 05:50, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
- Support Excellent work! Damian Vo (talk) 10:15, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
- @WP:FTC director and delegates: can I prod one of you to see if this is ready to promote? I'm selfishly hoping it can be promoted by the 29th for WikiCup purposes. — Bilorv (talk) 15:15, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
San Marino in the Eurovision Song Contest (1st supplementary nomination)
This topic is already featured. It is being re-nominated to add additional items. See Wikipedia talk:Featured topics/San Marino in the Eurovision Song Contest for discussions of the topic's previous nominations. The additional items are:
| discuss 12 articles San Marino in the Eurovision Song Contest
| ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
|
Renominating to add the most recent participation, 2021, which is now a WP:GA as well. Grk1011 (talk) 01:04, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
- Support: Looks like a straightforward addition of the latest iteration. Good work! -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 12:23, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
- Support
CommentI am a bit confused about the ref layout; San Marino RTV and European Broadcasting Union should both be wikilinked solely on the first instances, plus they should have the abbreviations in brackets on all instances for consistency.great to see another addition to this topic after I helped heavily review the contests of previous years! --K. Peake 19:15, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
- I think that may be more of a preference than a guideline unless I'm not looking in the right spot. WP:REPEATLINK lists the following: "Citations stand alone in their usage, so there is no problem with repeating the same link in many citations within an article; e.g.
|work=[[The Guardian]]
." Regarding the second part, I've had other editors remove the brackets on more popular articles when I've added them before. I'm more than happy to tweak the new 2021 article if I'm not interpreting this correctly! Grk1011 (talk) 21:08, 7 July 2021 (UTC)- Repeating a link is acceptable, but not really in the context of when you wikilink for some instances and not others, especially when San Marino RTV is not wikilinked on first mention. Also, stylization needs to be consistent so either have EBU in brackets for all citations or never use the brackets. --K. Peake 17:03, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
- @Kyle Peake: Ok, I have made the adjustments that you requested! Grk1011 (talk) 20:50, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
- Repeating a link is acceptable, but not really in the context of when you wikilink for some instances and not others, especially when San Marino RTV is not wikilinked on first mention. Also, stylization needs to be consistent so either have EBU in brackets for all citations or never use the brackets. --K. Peake 17:03, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
- I think that may be more of a preference than a guideline unless I'm not looking in the right spot. WP:REPEATLINK lists the following: "Citations stand alone in their usage, so there is no problem with repeating the same link in many citations within an article; e.g.
Sex (The 1975 EP)
| discuss 3 articles Sex
| ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
|
- Contributor(s): Giacobbe
"Let's talk about Sex (The 1975 EP), baby" – Salt-N-Pepa. Nominating this collection for Good Topic status, as the main article—Sex—and two of its tracks—"Sex" and "Milk" have been promoted to GAs. Giacobbe talk 14:38, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
- Support: Album and notable tracks at GA, all linked by a navbox and in a common super-category, as is common for album topics. I wish that "Milk" were linked in the lead section of the album article; other than that, it looks good! -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 17:15, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
- Comments in the lead of Sex, I would suggest changing "the record" to "it" in the last sentence since the term was used more recently than the title of the EP. Also, Idolator should be italicised both in prose and citation within "Sex", where I have my doubts about the reliability of the source Hit the Floor Magazine. These are all the issues I see; I was proud to review "Milk" not long ago and these articles are well-written and properly researched, great work! --K. Peake 20:17, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
- Comments I also have some doubts regarding the Hit the Floor Magazine source, which is present across all the articles. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 12:43, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
- Support all three articles are GA-class, so as far as I'm concerned, we're good to go! SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 03:24, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose Chocolate (The 1975 song), which was part of the album’s US version, isn’t a lt least good article. Armbrust The Homunculus 17:35, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
- Director comment @(CA)Giacobbe: Is there plans to improve Chocolate because otherwise the article is incomplete and I'll have to fail the nomination. GamerPro64 16:45, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
Meet the Woo 2
Meet the Woo 2 is the second mixtape by American rapper Pop Smoke. It was released on February 7, 2020, less than two weeks before the rapper was shot and killed at the age of 20 during a home invasion in Los Angeles. After many months of bringing all the articles to GA; it is finally ready. You know I'm shooting for the stars, aiming for the moon 💫 (talk) 08:25, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
| discuss 6 articles Meet the Woo 2
| ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
|
- Support, Good Job! --Panini!🥪 12:00, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
- Support with comment: the main article seems to say that the tape was released two weeks before his death, whereas the summary here says it was released two weeks after. Otherwise, it looks right, with the album and all notable tracks at GA, and no tour or film. Good work! -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 13:39, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
- Bryan Rutherford Shoot! Thanks for catching that. You know I'm shooting for the stars, aiming for the moon 💫 (talk) 18:35, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
Comments in the lead of Meet the Woo 2, you should not use "the mixtape" or "it" consecutively; once both have been used, write the album's title again. Also, I do not believe the term "the record" is appropriate for the lead. --K. Peake 18:55, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
- Kyle Peake I have reworded the lead. You know I'm shooting for the stars, aiming for the moon 💫 (talk) 08:59, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- Support now, great work on this collection of articles! --K. Peake 20:18, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- Kyle Peake I have reworded the lead. You know I'm shooting for the stars, aiming for the moon 💫 (talk) 08:59, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- Comments I have some concerns regarding the source OnSMASH as it describes itself as a blog and the authors are people that go by the name "Legend" and "Viral MVP" on most news, so alter-egos, nothing else can be found online regarding them. The source can be found on "Christopher Walking", "War" and "Meet the Woo 2". Better remove said sources from those articles. I would avoid Facebook and tweet links, I'm sure that information can be replaced by a better source, present on "Meet the Woo 2". The same applies to Youtube links, those performances must have been covered by reliable sources, if not let the YouTube links. I do have some doubts regarding SOHH as a reliable source, you also forgot to add their writers, if you can prove its reliability. Let me know once you have addressed these issues. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 13:22, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
- MarioSoulTruthFan I have removed SOHH and OnSmash as you have requested. Unfortunately, there are no reliable sources talking about Pop Smoke performing because he was just gaining fame, so the YouTube sources are the only sources to prove that Pop Smoke performed some of the songs from the mixtape. And regarding the Facebook and Twitter sources; those are from Pop Smoke's official accounts and talks about how the tour would have worked out if he was not shot dead. There are also no sources talking about how the tour would have worked out. You know I'm shooting for the stars, aiming for the moon 💫 (talk) 08:55, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- A ref is missing on "Christopher Walking". MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 18:13, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- MarioSoulTruthFan I have removed SOHH and OnSmash as you have requested. Unfortunately, there are no reliable sources talking about Pop Smoke performing because he was just gaining fame, so the YouTube sources are the only sources to prove that Pop Smoke performed some of the songs from the mixtape. And regarding the Facebook and Twitter sources; those are from Pop Smoke's official accounts and talks about how the tour would have worked out if he was not shot dead. There are also no sources talking about how the tour would have worked out. You know I'm shooting for the stars, aiming for the moon 💫 (talk) 08:55, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- Support as the concerns I raised were addressed. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 07:55, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
Topic removal candidates
Phedina
| discuss 3 articles Phedina
| ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
|
The main article, Phedina, has been turned into a redirect to one of the included articles. This leaves just two articles (1a) and no lead article (2). CMD (talk) 14:58, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
- Remove: With Brazza's Martin removed from the genus, this topic no longer exists, unfortunately. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 14:30, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
- Remove, per Bryan. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:36, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
- Remove, per Bryan. AryKun (talk) 07:45, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
John Morrison and the Miz
| discuss 4 articles John Morrison and the Miz
| ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
|
The Bella Twins has been delisted after a GAR. I don't know anything about this topic, but seemingly these twins were connected in some in-universe story with the two wrestlers who are the subject of the topic. Oddly, the main article in the topic doesn't mention the twins once that I can see, so maybe they never needed to be in the topic at all? I don't feel competent to judge. Maybe the twins should just be removed from the topic, and the rest of it could stand without them; if not, then I guess the topic is now incomplete without that article and fails criterion 1(d). Anyone who knows more about this subject area care to weigh in? -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 14:07, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
- Comment I am not familiar with this topic area but the original nominator stated The Bella Twins was included in this topic because they/were managers for John Morrison and the Miz (link). The article in question mostly has dead link issues, too much in-universe info according to the GAR nom, and lead issues so it could be possibly be salvable if an editor has the time. Whether or not it belongs in the topic, per the precedent at related professional wrestling topic teams at WP:GT, probably yes as they do include the manager within the topic. I have also pinged the professional wrestling wikiproject [1]. Spy-cicle💥 Talk? 00:53, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
- Comment - The article used to include a mention of Nikki Bella as the team's manager. In July 2018, it was decided to remove the "In wrestling" section from articles, which had formerly included such information as managers and signature/finishing moves. People objected to the section as a "cruft magnet" that attracted unsourced information, so it was decided to remove the section entirely from every one of thousands of articles, even if it was properly cited. This came with an assurance that, of course, no information would be lost, as people would undoubtedly rewrite the information into prose sections. As you point out, this has not been done. I know this explanation doesn't solve the problem, but it might clear up part of the mystery. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:40, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Inside No. 9
| discuss 13 articles Inside No. 9
| ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
|
Inside No. 9 has now run for six series; this GT listed the first two series, and the third are actually all GAs/FAs, but there's little-to-no progress for episodes in the next three series (which I believe are all notable). (So that's a 1(d) issue.) Long past any retention period, regrettably (series 4 aired in 2018). Minimum way to get this back to GT could be to create list articles for each series, get them to FL, and then make three topics for the first three series. — Bilorv (talk) 15:46, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
- Remove: Nowhere near complete, as the nom makes clear. Tough to keep topics on ongoing subjects up to date! -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 16:57, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
- Comment: I agree that this can't be a featured or good topic any more as there are no articles on many of the recent episodes -- I always meant to get to them, but never did! I wonder whether we could not just have three separate topics for series 1-3? Would there need to be "list of episode" articles for each series (i.e., could the main IN9 article not work as the lead article required by the topic criteria?) It seems odd to have to create those lists purely for the purpose of having the topic. Josh Milburn (talk) 13:27, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
- My understanding is that if you have the main article as Inside No. 9 then the topic must be the whole show (criterion 1(d)) and so you need every episode, and if you have the topic as "Inside No. 9 series 1" then you need a main article/list that's just about the first series (criterion 2). Maybe someone else can say more definitively whether this is right or point to examples of it being done differently. — Bilorv (talk) 13:53, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
- Yes sadly for this current topic of with the main article as "Inside No. 9" you need all episodes. Alternatively, you could have possibly "Overview of Inside No. 9" with List of Episodes and Awards and nominations, (plus list of characters if it exists) though that does not seem to possible in this case since from the looks of it the awards table is not long enough to justify a split and there is not list of episodes either since it already fits in the main article. This can somewhat be difficult to do with British shows since they on average have fewer episodes per series meanining less likely for an separate award list and separate list of episodes (Example topic). Bilorv's idea of splitting the topic into different series like series 1, series 2, could work assuming a separate article could be made for each series, though can be tricky to do if there are only 6 episodes in a series (Example topic). Spy-cicle💥 Talk? 14:18, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
- Remove Sadly no longer meets 1.d. Regards Spy-cicle💥 Talk? 14:18, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
Physical geography of Somerset
| discuss 12 articles Physical geography of Somerset
| ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
|
Sadly an article (Chew Valley Lake) was delisted due to not meeting FA requirements and the notice period has expired. (t · c) buidhe 05:01, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- Remove: Article delisted, and no sign of efforts to restore it to the standard. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 13:09, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- Remove unfortunate to see this topic become incomplete, but nobody has shown any interest in even re-nominating the article after its delisting. --K. Peake 14:14, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- Remove per nom. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 08:24, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- Remove per buidhe. Spy-cicle💥 Talk? 15:45, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
- Remove per nom and Bryan. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:38, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
National symbols of Belarus
| discuss 4 articles National symbols of Belarus
| ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
|
The main article was delisted in February and the retention period has expired so this does not meet requirements for a featured topic. (t · c) buidhe 04:57, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- Remove: The main article is not close to GA, nor does it appear to be under improvement. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 13:07, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- Remove per Bryanrutherford0. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 11:39, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- Remove the topic needs to be demoted with the main article no longer a FA. --K. Peake 14:12, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- Remove per nom - a key part of the topic, and it's far from GA status. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 02:02, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- Remove lead article has been demoted and is far from ga status. Hog Farm Talk 20:54, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
- Remove main article is needed for this topic's scope. Spy-cicle💥 Talk? 15:45, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
- Remove per nom. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:39, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
Wipeout
| discuss 10 articles Wipeout series
| ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
|
Nominating this because Wipeout Omega Collection has been greatly sourced since the last time this was discussed and thus stands as its own article. As such this topic is incomplete. GamerPro64 01:41, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
- Remove: the article is clearly notable and it not being up to GA-status or even nominated means this topic should be demoted. --K. Peake 07:57, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
Remove: the series certainly requires the latest installment. Sure hope someone picks this up! -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 12:53, 20 April 2021 (UTC)- Reluctantly, I don't think I'll have enough time to save this GT by bringing Wipeout Omega Collection to GA. I will of course renominate this once I've done so. ♦ jaguar 16:52, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
- Comment: Jaguar I have already cast my vote, but I'd like to remind you that the retention period for topics is up to three months. --K. Peake 08:06, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
- I wasn't aware of the retention period. I may be a bit rusty after three years but I'll make a start on the article hopefully tonight. ♦ jaguar 08:58, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
RemoveSadly the topic no longer meets 1.d. Spy-cicle💥 Talk? 04:08, 30 April 2021 (UTC)- Keep/continue with supp. nom, now that the collection is a GA, it now meets 1.d. Spy-cicle💥 Talk? 15:43, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
RemoveEven though I vote reluctantly. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 09:35, 12 May 2021 (UTC)- Director comment' - noticed Wipeout Omega Collection is nominated at GAN now so we'll have to keep this nomination up pending the result of the review. GamerPro64 18:31, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- Wipeout Omega Collection is now a GA, completing this good topic. ♦ jaguar 20:11, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
- Keep and then do a supplemental nomination for Wipeout Omega Collection. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 16:49, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
- @Kyle Peake, Bryanrutherford0, Spy-cicle, and MarioSoulTruthFan: the collection has been promoted to GA status and I would like for you to reassess the topic. GamerPro64 18:47, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
- Keep: That resolves the concern here, I think! Should this then be moved to a supplemental nomination? -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 18:58, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
- I await when a supplemental nomination has been at least submitted for the new GA, then I will re assess. --K. Peake 19:01, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
- Keep because Wipeout Omega Collection's now GA. «2nd|ias» 03:14, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
- Keep It resolves the issue. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 10:11, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
- Keep The collection's now GA, so there's no issue anymore. AryKun (talk) 03:49, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
- Keep With that article being GA now, the issue's moot. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 19:04, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- Keep All articles are GA now.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 18:25, 19 August 2021 (UTC)