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
Overview of Regine Velasquez
Regine Velasquez is a Filipino singer and actress. She rose to prominence after winning the talent show Ang Bagong Kampeon in 1984 and the Asia Pacific Singing Contest in 1989. Velasquez achieved commercial success in some Asian territories with her albums Listen Without Prejudice (1994), My Love Emotion (1995), and Retro (1996). Outside of music, she has starred in films, including Kailangan Ko'y Ikaw (2000), Till I Met You (2006), and Of All the Things (2013), while she took on starring roles in the the prime time television series Forever in My Heart (2004), Diva (2010), and Poor Señorita (2016). She also expanded her career into reality television talent shows, serving as a presenter on Star for a Night (2002), Pinoy Pop Superstar (2004), and The Clash (2018); and as a judge on StarStruck (2015) and Idol Philippines (2019). In a career spanning three decades, Velasquez is the recipient of numerous awards, including two Asian Television Awards, two MTV Asia Awards, 15 Aliw Awards (including three Entertainer of the Year wins), 21 Awit Awards, and 22 Box Office Entertainment Awards.
| discuss 6 articles Regine Velasquez
| ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
|
- Contributor(s): Pseud 14
This is an overview of Filipino entertainer Regine Velasquez. I am nominating these series of related articles to WP:FT. All relevant articles have been promoted to either GA and FL this year (with the exception of awards and songs which were promoted to FL back in 2018). Happy to address your comments and thanks to all who take the time to review. --Pseud 14 (talk) 18:30, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
- Support: Looks like the GA biography and a series of FLs, all linked by a category and navbox and linked in appropriate places in the main article. I don't see anything obviously missing! -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 20:33, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
Billboard number-one country songs
Billboard magazine has published charts ranking the top-performing country music songs in the United States since 1944. The first country chart was published under the title Most Played Juke Box Folk Records in the issue of the magazine dated January 8, 1944, and tracked the songs most played in the nation's jukeboxes. Billboard added a second chart in 1947 based on retail sales, and a third in 1949 based on radio airplay. The jukebox chart was discontinued in 1957, and the following year, the remaining two charts were dropped and replaced with a chart, initially entitled Hot C&W Sides, which combined sales and airplay data into one overall ranking. This chart was renamed Hot Country Singles in 1962, Hot Country Singles and Tracks in 1990, and Hot Country Songs in 2005. In 1990, its methodology changed to use only airplay data from country music radio stations. In 2012, this changed again to use data from stations of all formats as well as sales and streaming information. At the same time, a new Country Airplay chart was introduced, which continued the former methodology of tracking plays on country stations only.
| discuss 78 articles Billboard number-one country songs
| ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
|
- Contributor(s): ChrisTheDude
This is a complete overview of the songs that have topped Billboard's country music charts since the first one was launched in 1944. It's taken me just over four years to get to this point, so I hope you like it :-) The 2021 list will be nominated for FL once the year has finished and (assuming both this and that pass) added to the FT at that point and so on going forward...... --ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:41, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
- Support. A tremendous amount of work, even if the world's greatest country singer is missing. Obviously a topic which will require constant ongoing maintenance but it's clearly in good hands as regards this. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 15:12, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
- It does raise the question though--and this has no bearing on this nomination passing--do we want to look at adding an optional fourth column to the topic box template to reduce the height of some particularly large topics like this? Three would still be the expected default I assume but we could conceivably neaten up some with four columns. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 15:15, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
- That is a fair point, I have raised it at the relevant template talk page here. Spy-cicle💥 Talk? 15:02, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
- It does raise the question though--and this has no bearing on this nomination passing--do we want to look at adding an optional fourth column to the topic box template to reduce the height of some particularly large topics like this? Three would still be the expected default I assume but we could conceivably neaten up some with four columns. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 15:15, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
- Support: I'll just note that the lead article has already been promoted to FL but (as of this writing) the bot hasn't processed the promotion yet. I also think four columns would be a better idea for this unusually large topic. Great work! -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 21:05, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
- Support more than 70 years spanned by these lists, kudos for such a large acheivement! --K. Peake 16:40, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
- Support Meets the criteria. Superb work on all of these lists. Spy-cicle💥 Talk? 15:10, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
Good topic nominations
Like a Prayer
Like a Prayer is the fourth studio album by American singer-songwriter Madonna, released on March 21, 1989, by Sire Records. It was met with universal acclaim from music critics, who praised the songwriting and recognized Madonna's increased artistic merit. Commercially, the album was an international success, reaching the top of the charts in 20 countries, including the United States and United Kingdom. Six accompanying singles were released, with the title track becoming her seventh number-one hit on the US Billboard Hot 100; second single "Express Yourself" peaked at number two. With the singles' music videos, Madonna furthered her creativity and became known as a leading figure in the format. The music video for "Like a Prayer" led to significant religious controversy, using Catholic iconography such as stigmata and burning crosses, and leading the Vatican to condemn it. The video for "Express Yourself" was the most expensive video at the time of its release. The album was promoted on Madonna's ground-breaking Blond Ambition World Tour in 1990. At the end of the 1980s, following the release of the album, Madonna was named artist of the decade by several publications.
| discuss 10 articles Like a Prayer
| ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
|
These are a series of articles pertaining to the Like a Prayer era by Madonna. All relevant articles passing notability have been included and are Good Articles, satisfies WP:FT?--Christian (talk) 19:34, 14 November 2021 (UTC) --Christian (talk) 19:34, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
- Support: Looks like the album, all singles and notable tracks, the tour, tour film, and tour documentary, all linked by a navbox and supercategory, and all at GA! Well done! -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 13:37, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
- Comment AllMusic is not italicized. On "Like a Prayer" and on "Keep It Together" the website "medium" is not reliable. "www.bac-lac.gc.ca.", " www.officialcharts.com" and "www.rhino.com" → fix on the album. uDiscover music is under the umblrela of Universal, therefore it might be some bias. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 15:12, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
Shadow Hearts
Shadow Hearts is a series of role-playing video games developed by Sacnoth (later renamed Nautilus) and released between 1999 and 2005. The series originates with the title Koudelka, from which the universe and some characters of Shadow Hearts titles are drawn. The series has retained a following due to its gameplay design and blended use of alternate history and Lovecraftian horror.
| discuss 6 articles Shadow Hearts
| ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
|
- Contributor(s): ProtoDrake
Enough commentary and attention was given to each game, the series and its music that an article exists for each. All articles related to the series are at GA level, a process which has taken some time due to other commitments and occasional difficulties finding sources. This series is unlikely to see any additions for some time, if at all, as the original studio has ceased to exist and its developers are mostly scattered to other studios or ventures, so the topic will likely remain stable. While it is less prominent than other gaming titles of its day, it has received attention from game critics and was successful in its time. Due to its status as the series origin, I believe Koudelka does belong as part of this topic despite not sharing the series title. --ProtoDrake (talk) 21:31, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
- Support. Had a look at the parent article and everything which could be included here is. Tied together with a category and navbox, everything's at the requisite quality. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 21:46, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
- Support with the slight disclaimer that I think Sacnoth/Nautilus probably deserves to eventually be part of the topic - the vast, vast majority of their notable work was on this series. That said, the topic is fine without it, so I don't think it's a mandatory inclusion. (And agree with ProtoDrake that Koudelka should definitely be included, it's the same universe & everything.) SnowFire (talk) 21:58, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
- Support: Looks like the series and all the titles at GA, together with the music article, all joined by a navbox and category. I'd probably rearrange the links in the GT box to be in chronological order (I'd use three columns, with two games in each of the first two columns and the music article in the third). -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 22:43, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
- Support: I agree with everybody here, including Koudelka being part of the topic. Roberth Martinez (talk) 01:58, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
- Support: Agreeing with previous comments - nicely done.--AlexandraIDV 06:08, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
- Support: Happy to support. Good work, as always. OceanHok (talk) 17:26, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
- Comment Great work on these articles. I have been piece of feedback: Are you able to fill in the "trans-title" parameter on references that have titles in Japanese as I noticed some do not have it filled in. Spy-cicle💥 Talk? 15:14, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
- @Spy-cicle: Only Koudelka had a trans-title usage, so I decided to remove it. I don't have the time or energy to put trans-titles in all those articles in a short time. Apologies. --ProtoDrake (talk) 16:05, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
808s & Heartbreak
808s & Heartbreak is the fourth studio album by Kanye West, released on November 24, 2008. West's new musical direction of using Auto-Tune did confuse some critics, though general assessments of the album and its singles were positive, later leading to numerous rankings and awards for West. The album brought West a large amount of commercial success, especially with the hits "Heartless" and "Love Lockdown".
| discuss 12 articles 808s & Heartbreak
| ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
|
- Contributor(s): K. Peake, Bruce Campbell, IndianBio
I am submitting 808s & Heartbreak to become a good topic, following on from all of the detailed articles having rightfully earned GA-status. The album and its scheduled tour were promoted by users other than me many years ago, though I have made sure that these ones are still up to standard now and all of the songs were promotions of mine from 2019-21. All the articles have remained stable, as well as covered by reliable sources. --K. Peake 07:00, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
- Support
Rapreviews.com on "Coldest Winter" and "RoboCop" doesn't seem reliable at all. I do have some doubts regarding "Mind Equals Blown". On "RoboCop" the Overthinking It source, the people writing for it have degrees in something else but journalism, with one working as a janitor? On "Paranoid", the Soul in Stereo is a blog run by only one person, no one else. On "Welcome to Heartbreak" I have some doubts regarding the notability of the Antville Music Video Awards.On "Amazing" there are sources with publishers, others without, be consistent. In the same article, I'm 100% sure you can find a better source to replace rockonthenet. On the album article, "he Amajanes Blog" has to be removed. Aside from this,nice job on providing sources to show the notability of every song in the album.MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 09:05, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
- See Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources for the verdict on RapReviews as generally reliable, see this review for my explanation of Mind Equals Blown in terms of reliability.
Regarding Overthinking It, the about page shows that there are editorial, podcast and technical teams, as well as listing out a large number of staff. Many of these are qualified, such as experienced writers Matthew Wrather and Mark Lee, while the original article's author Ryan Sheely is a political scientist that studies numerous subjects, including applying social science to pop and hip hop records. Since the staff I discovered on the site seem to constitute reliability, I think you may have accidentally stumbled across one of the lower members and thought them to be representative of the majority.--K. Peake 06:10, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
- I have more concerns and updated the previous ones.
On top of that, "Mind Equals Blown (MEB) is the product of a group of friends coming together in a search for a deeper appreciation of music", doesn't strike me as notable, your explanation proves nothing as they selected certain pieces. I didn't stumble upon a lower member of the staff, but Matthew Wrather.MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 09:05, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
- I have now removed Mind Equals Blown and the info it was sourcing, replaced Soul in Stereo
and the Antville Music Video Awards annually gives online awards to videos, so I don't see how it's not notable for a non-single like "Welcome to Heartbreak". Any excess publishers were removed from "Amazing" now and I've only kept the parameter where it should solely be used to cite publications, also I replaced both Rock on the Net and The Amajanes Blog.Overthinking It is still pending since I have got work today and it sources a lot of info, so I'll replace tomorrow probably.I have now deleted any usage of the publication from "RoboCop", either replacing it where other sources mentioned the info or removing the content altogether. --K. Peake 15:56, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
- I have now removed Mind Equals Blown and the info it was sourcing, replaced Soul in Stereo
- I have more concerns and updated the previous ones.
- Good job so far! I have strike almost everything, however, I still have some difficulty wrapping my hand around the Antville Music Video Awards. The site nowadays seems to be run by "kevathens", it used to have other people back in the day. People are asked to post music videos. Looks like a blog of music video fans who comment on that specter and vote for a video they like once a year. It is not an award show like the MTV Music Video Awards and others in the same vein. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 09:11, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
- On further inspection, the website does not have any about or contact us page and appears very blog-like, so I have removed now. --K. Peake 08:21, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
- Great job, I have no objections. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 08:06, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for the support after all the cleaning up I did, but I would like to inform you that the aside part of your initial comments has not been striked, making it read quite awkwardly. --K. Peake 20:43, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
- See Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources for the verdict on RapReviews as generally reliable, see this review for my explanation of Mind Equals Blown in terms of reliability.
- You welcome. Which part? MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 09:34, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
- I literally mean the "aside from this" part. --K. Peake 06:23, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
- That is a compliment. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 12:46, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
- MarioSoulTruthFan Not the whole sentence, I meant those three words since they are no longer relevant now I've fixed things. --K. Peake 08:10, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
- That is a compliment. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 12:46, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
- I literally mean the "aside from this" part. --K. Peake 06:23, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
- Support: Looks like the album, tour, and all notable tracks at GA, with some navbox connections and a shared supercategory (we're often flexible about these points with music album topics). I don't see anything missing. Good work! -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 12:20, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
- Support As the reviewer for quite a few of these articles I'm more than happy to offer my support. – zmbro (talk) 12:41, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
- Support. Discrete topic, covers everything to be expected (and more). No gaps, everything at sufficient article grade. Bruce Campbell is a name I haven't seen in a while, too! 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 16:00, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
- Support. All the articles look fine, I don't see any issue with them. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 08:53, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Line 1 (Sound Transit) stations (1st supplementary nomination)
This topic is already featured. It is being re-nominated to add additional items. See Wikipedia talk:Featured topics/Line 1 (Sound Transit) stations for discussions of the topic's previous nominations. The additional items are:
| 17 articles Line 1 (Sound Transit) stations
| ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
|
Three new stations on this line have opened and they have already passed their GANs. After some appropriate updates and restructuring, I feel they're ready to be included in the topic. SounderBruce 07:02, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
- Support: Looks like a straightforward addition of new stations to the existing line. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 12:14, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
- Support per above -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:10, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
- Support - looks pretty straightforward to me..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:40, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
- Support Routine additions, looks all good to go from here. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 16:02, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
- Comments either expand the location section of Northgate station or merge it with another section due to the small size, while I have my doubts regarding the reliability of SDOT Blog on Roosevelt station and Huffington Post contributor on Washington University station is unreliable per WP:RSP. The source Cheasty Greenspace on Columbia city station appears to be a blog-style one, merge the last para of history for Othello station with the above one, plus neither SeaTac/Airport station nor Angle Lake station should have refs for the opening dates in the infoboxes and the usage of SeaTac Blog on the latter seems unreliable. Despite these issues, the topic itself is of my interest; well done on putting such dedicated work into a collection of stations within an area! --K. Peake 09:27, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
1909 Atlantic hurricane season
The 1909 Atlantic hurricane season was a destructive year with all but one of the 13 known tropical cyclones impacting land. Collectively, these storms killed at least 4,673 people and caused more than US$77.3 million in damage. Haiti, Mexico, and the United States were especially hard-hit, each seeing hundreds to thousands of fatalities. In July, a Category 3 hurricane struck Texas, killing 41 people. Another major hurricane in August inflicted catastrophic damage in and around Monterrey, Mexico, and was one of the deadliest on record in the Atlantic hurricane basin, killing an estimated 4,000 people in the country. The season's third major hurricane struck Cuba and Louisiana in September, killing an estimated 400 people. In October, the year's final major hurricane caused significant damage in western Cuba and southern Florida. The season ended with a Category 2 hurricane that produced prolific rainfall across the Greater Antilles, killing at least 198 people.
| discuss 6 articles 1909 Atlantic hurricane season
| ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
|
- Contributor(s): Cyclonebiskit, 12george1, TheAustinMan
This destructive early 20th century season has been ready for nominating for a few years, with all of the articles being up to par. This was a collective effort between 12george1, TheAustinMan, and myself. --~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 20:06, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
- Support: Looks like all the notable hurricanes and the season article at GA, with a navbox (which I cleaned up to include all the links) and category. Great work! -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 20:24, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
- Comments in the main article, merge the first and second sentences of the second para in the Tropical Storm Three sub-section by using a semi-colon and center the refs in the column, removing the full-stop before a group of them. A merge can also be done of the second and third sentences in the impact section of 1909 Grand Isle hurricane, adding a comma followed by "while" to do so. I also take issue with a ref in the infobox of 1909 Florida Keys hurricane since even though the fatalities figure belongs there, you can write this out in the impact section of the body at the end. Besides these issues, great job on finding this much info about the hurricanes from reliable sources, also the summary is really well-written with the references to each article! --K. Peake 09:12, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
- Support. Looks complete—obviously not every hurricane has an article but looking at the main season article I can't see any that don't have one and would warrant it, this seems as complete in scope as notability permits. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 16:04, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
Next Nine
NASA Astronaut Group 2, also known as the "Next Nine" and the "New Nine", was the second group of astronauts selected by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). Chosen in 1962 to augment the Mercury Seven, these astronauts were meant to fly the two-man Gemini spacecraft and three-man Apollo spacecraft then under development. The nine astronauts were Neil Armstrong, Frank Borman, Pete Conrad, Jim Lovell, James McDivitt, Elliot See, Tom Stafford, Ed White and John Young. Six of the nine flew to the Moon (Lovell and Young twice), and Armstrong, Conrad and Young walked on it as well. Seven of the nine were awarded the Congressional Space Medal of Honor.
| discuss 10 articles NASA Astronaut Group 2
| ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
|
- Contributor(s): Hawkeye7, Kees08, Balon Greyjoy
After the Mercury Seven comes the Next Nine. Six of them were awarded the NASA Medal of Honor, five travelled to the Moon (two of the twice!) and three walked on it, including Neil Armstrong, the first man to do so. --Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:08, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
CommentsSupport: There's precedent for titling a GT/FT differently than the main article, but that's when the scope of the topic isn't quite the same as the subject of the lead article, and it looks to me like here they're the same. "Next Nine" is certainly catchier than "NASA Astronaut Group 2", but, since the article's title presumably reflects the community's judgment about the primary title associated with this subject, maybe the GT should reflect that fact? I've added a summary paragraph to the proposal, as the rules now require; others should feel free to edit and improve my draft! The articles all seem to be at quality, and they're linked by a navbox, though not exactly by any clear category; probably one should be created, along the lines of Category:Mercury Seven. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 13:08, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
- My concerns have been addressed; changing to support. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 20:18, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
- Support on article quality but I do share the concerns about the topic title; "Next Nine" is catchy and does automatically denote the idea of a series of entries, but I'm not sure that it should take precedence over the article's title. Other than that this is tremendous work, clear in scope and complete. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 14:33, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
- It was never my intention to rename the article; it was just my own working title for the topic. I'm perfectly happy with for the topic to be named NASA Astronaut Group 2. I have created a Category:NASA Astronaut Group 2 along the lines of the Mercury Seven's one; there is a corresponding category on Commons. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:02, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
- Support. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:47, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
- Support - all looks good to me! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:08, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
- Support
Commentsmerge the first para with the second one in the Neil Armstrong article since five paras is too much per WP:LEAD, but then place parts from the second para into the third to avoid the former becoming overly long. Merge the fifth para with the fourth for Pete Conrad per above and remove the refs from the infobox because those awards are already sourced in the body, also IMDb should be removed from references in this article and Jim Lovell per WP:RSP. You have accidentally added an extra t to Elliot See's name in the navbox and that definitely needs to be fixed, whereas the article's first para should be merged with the second one and the media section is too short, so should join legacy and add the necessary source(s) for the miniseries and film. Also, Ed White should be piped to Ed White (astronaut) and I think you should merge the media section with another one, maybe organizations and combine the titles because neither is long enough? Outside of these issues,very hard work on these impressive articles and the introduction itself makes for an intriguing read! Note even though the third Neil Armstrong para looks too beefy to me and the first appears too small, these are stylistic preferences so I can't oppose based on them. --K. Peake 08:23, 6 November 2021 (UTC)- Too awkward to merge Neil Armstrong as proposed; merged paragraphs three and four as they are both about his astronaut career, bring the paragraph count down to four. Merged Pete Conrad lead as suggested. Replaced IMDB link in Jim Lovell. Correct typo in Elliot See's name. Changed piping of Ed White. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:26, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
Sorry but I am going to have to remove my support since the Pete Conrad article still uses IMDb references... remove or replace these now. --K. Peake 08:50, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
- Too awkward to merge Neil Armstrong as proposed; merged paragraphs three and four as they are both about his astronaut career, bring the paragraph count down to four. Merged Pete Conrad lead as suggested. Replaced IMDB link in Jim Lovell. Correct typo in Elliot See's name. Changed piping of Ed White. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:26, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
- Hey Hawkeye7, before I promote this I just wanted to confirm, whats the topic title we're going with here? Best – Aza24 (talk) 22:44, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
King for a Day... Fool for a Lifetime
King for a Day... Fool for a Lifetime is the fifth studio album by Faith No More, released on March 28, 1995. It was their first album recorded without longtime guitarist Jim Martin. The album spanned a range of genres, and spawned three singles—"Digging the Grave", "Ricochet" and "Evidence". Following Martin's departure, Trey Spruance was brought on to perform on the album, having also been in Mr. Bungle with singer Mike Patton. Production of the album was further marred by the band suffering a car accident, and by the absence of keyboard player Roddy Bottum, who was affected by the deaths of both his father and his friend Kurt Cobain. Spruance was replaced on the supporting tour by the band's former roadie Dean Menta. Critical reception to the album has been mixed, with its varied genres being cited as a detraction by several reviewers.
| discuss 4 articles King for a Day... Fool for a Lifetime
| ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
|
- Contributor(s): Grapple X
This is my first music-based GT nomination but it should be comprehensive--the album and each of the singles have their own articles; no other songs are independently notable enough to warrant an article separate from the lead article. All articles have been assessed at GAN. The introductory paragraph is a new requirement since I was last at GTC--if it's too long I can trim it down, gauging the appropriate size was mostly guesswork. Thanks in advance to all having a look at this. --𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ X 15:46, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
- Comments:
On "Digging the Grave" and "Evidence", wikilink exclaim.ca. On the album article wikilink Sydney Morning Herald; old.fnm.com. → FNM.com, "www.feastorfamine.com" → also fix this, source 47 has no publication, source 50 has no publication, author.On the Chart positions section of the album, use Template:Album chart. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 17:07, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
- I've made a number of the other fixes, but I'm working on that conversion to the album chart template and it seems like that's going to mean losing the "weeks in chart" field which I can't see the template supporting; is this really necessary to go through the legwork of converting a table to a series of templates which will end up losing information? 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ X 18:01, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
- You are supposed to have a commercial performance section on the album article, which covers that along with peaks, year-end charts, and certifications.
Also no author, publication on source 48.MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 09:34, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
- You are supposed to have a commercial performance section on the album article, which covers that along with peaks, year-end charts, and certifications.
- I've made a number of the other fixes, but I'm working on that conversion to the album chart template and it seems like that's going to mean losing the "weeks in chart" field which I can't see the template supporting; is this really necessary to go through the legwork of converting a table to a series of templates which will end up losing information? 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ X 18:01, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
- Never said the information was not valid at all, henceforth I propose the change by adding it to the reception or commercial performance. I just believe if an album spent 5,6 or 8 weeks on an album chart doesn't seem very relevant. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 08:07, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
- Hey MarioSoulTruthFan, I just wanted to check in if you feel comfortable supporting or if you have unaddressed concerns? Aza24 (talk) 22:29, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
- Hello, Aza24 I have yet one unaddressed concern. It's the only comment I have not yet struck. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 09:32, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
- Hey MarioSoulTruthFan, I just wanted to check in if you feel comfortable supporting or if you have unaddressed concerns? Aza24 (talk) 22:29, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
- Support: Album and all singles at GA, linked by a navbox and supercategory. There doesn't appear to have been an associated tour, live album, or any other articles that should be here. Looks right to me! Good work! -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 18:06, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
- Comments
there are refs in the lead of the album for info that should be written out and sourced in the body; mention the heavy metal leanings under production and genre shuffle as part of reception. The info can remain in the lead too without the refs if you believe this is suitable, but everything there needs to be in the body. The image of the keyboardist belongs in the recording sub-section andthe release history para should be in the section above, retitling to release and reception.You should use the chart templates like MarioSoulTruthFan mentioned and it does show weeks for ones such as Billboard and ARIA, also there's no organizations in brackets for numerous charts that these would add and put one in brackets for the year-end chart too. In all of the articles, you should not change the parameter on different occasions of citing the same publication, plus merge the release and reception sections on "Richochet" and "Evidence" due to their small sizes.I do not take stability issues with the pending request for the latter's article title to be changed since this does not affect the actual content and for the most parts, these articles are well-written and worthy of my congratulations for your hard work! --K. Peake 11:32, 14 October 2021 (UTC)- I have moved the material cited in the lead of the main article down to the reception section and reworked it a little (I honestly thought that Rolling Stone quote was already there so thanks for pointing it out). The image you mention moving is something I'd like to keep where it is--I don't mind what the image actually is but keeping something under that heading is to break up what would otherwise be a longer stretch of only text, moving it to a higher heading would clash with the infobox and leave the later headings looking more like blocks of text. I'm happy to switch the image for a different one if you think something else is more relevant there but the placement is deliberate. The commons category has a few shots of the whole band if you think that would be a better option; I just went with Bottum as he's discussed specifically a bit. I would also still respectfully disagree on the idea of switching to chart templates rather than the existing table; this feels like a stylistic preference and I stand by the information being presented how it is. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 13:27, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
The heavy metal info was not moved into the body, also the jazz and funk elements marking a departure is not sourced there andyou missed the release and reception edits for all of the articles.It is fine not to use chart templates, but you need to add the organizations in brackets and used the chart names since writing Switzerland, Austria, etc. on there own does not provide proper information about these charts.--K. Peake 08:17, 15 October 2021 (UTC)- Removed some more of the genre discussion as citing it would largely be synthesis, it adds little to nothing anyway so it's an easy cut. Chart names added alongside nations; went with country first, chart second as this should be easier to parse for the lay reader. I missed the "release and reception" edits as it's really just a WP:STYLEVAR issue, which I don't feel is germane to this nomination. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 13:10, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
- That is fine since the content is still there properly, though you still need to move the release info for the album article because release history sections are tables and this is prose, so it belongs elsewhere.
Also, publications are still cited with inconsistency, such as FNM.com being italicised at points.--K. Peake 08:43, 16 October 2021 (UTC)- Hey Kyle Peake, I just wanted to check in if you feel comfortable supporting or if you have unaddressed concerns? Aza24 (talk) 22:29, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
- All of the things that I have not crossed out are still yet to be covered. --K. Peake 06:30, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
- Combed through refs in the main article to ensure consistent ref formatting but anything else I feel boils down to WP:STYLEVAR and I don't a reason to change from one valid layout to another; this is a candidacy for a topic and should ideally focus on the criteria at WP:WIAGT. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 09:49, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
- All of the things that I have not crossed out are still yet to be covered. --K. Peake 06:30, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
- Hey Kyle Peake, I just wanted to check in if you feel comfortable supporting or if you have unaddressed concerns? Aza24 (talk) 22:29, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
- That is fine since the content is still there properly, though you still need to move the release info for the album article because release history sections are tables and this is prose, so it belongs elsewhere.
- Removed some more of the genre discussion as citing it would largely be synthesis, it adds little to nothing anyway so it's an easy cut. Chart names added alongside nations; went with country first, chart second as this should be easier to parse for the lay reader. I missed the "release and reception" edits as it's really just a WP:STYLEVAR issue, which I don't feel is germane to this nomination. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 13:10, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
- I have moved the material cited in the lead of the main article down to the reception section and reworked it a little (I honestly thought that Rolling Stone quote was already there so thanks for pointing it out). The image you mention moving is something I'd like to keep where it is--I don't mind what the image actually is but keeping something under that heading is to break up what would otherwise be a longer stretch of only text, moving it to a higher heading would clash with the infobox and leave the later headings looking more like blocks of text. I'm happy to switch the image for a different one if you think something else is more relevant there but the placement is deliberate. The commons category has a few shots of the whole band if you think that would be a better option; I just went with Bottum as he's discussed specifically a bit. I would also still respectfully disagree on the idea of switching to chart templates rather than the existing table; this feels like a stylistic preference and I stand by the information being presented how it is. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 13:27, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
- I will let this slide on the refs actually, but you still need to fix the release history part since that section being too small is not my only issue; it is also in prose which is not how history is even laid out. --K. Peake 18:08, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
Topic removal candidates
Carnivàle
| discuss 5 articles Carnivàle
| ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
|
The article Characters of Carnivàle lost its featured article status a month ago, so the topic is no longer complete. RunningTiger123 (talk) 18:57, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
- Remove. Having a look at the issues raised at FAR, this has a long hill to climb to regain its status, far more than any realistic grace period could provide. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 19:10, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
- Remove: Yes, it doesn't look like anyone is trying to restore the list to FL, and the topic falls without it. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 19:36, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
Characters of Halo
| discuss 6 articles Characters of Halo
| ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
|
The main article has been reclassified as a list, which resulted in its demotion from GA status (since lists can't be Good Articles), so, unless and until someone successfully runs it as a FL, the topic is now incomplete. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 12:25, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
- Remove. Fairly academic. Looks like David Fuchs is doing some work to tighten it up and if they wish to bring it to WP:FL I can withdraw this !vote pending assessment but as things stand it's clearly incomplete. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 02:42, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
- Remove the article not being a FL at this point would be like the same for an artist's discography in a GT dedicated to it --K. Peake 17:53, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
Islands of Scotland
| discuss 16 articles Islands of Scotland
| ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
|
St Kilda, Scotland was demoted on 26 June 2021, there is no effort to change that, and without it the topic fails criterion 3.b. Armbrust The Homunculus 15:16, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
- Comment: It looks to me as though the St. Kilda archipelago is within the scope of List of outlying islands of Scotland, and so should probably never have been part of this topic proposal in the first place. Maybe it can be done without? -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 17:26, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep per Bryan Rutherford. I had to think about it a bit, but they are quite right. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:50, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
- I don't have an opinion about the scope but a quick look indicates that some of the lists contain verifiability issues and original research, which I've flagged on List of freshwater islands in Scotland. (t · c) buidhe 03:10, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
Millennium Park
| discuss 17 articles Millennium Park
| ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
|
McDonald's Cycle Center was demoted on 19 June 2021, there is no effort to change that, and without it the topic fails criterion 3.b. Armbrust The Homunculus 15:10, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
- Remove: I don't feel absolutely clear about the scope of this topic, but the previous promoters evidently judged that the Cycle Center article belonged here. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 17:23, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
- Remove the McDonald's Cycle Center is in the corner of the park and even has its own sub-section in the main article, therefore the topic is definitely incomplete without this addition. --K. Peake 08:49, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
1899 Kentucky gubernatorial election
| discuss 6 articles 1899 Kentucky gubernatorial election
| ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
|
William Goebel was demoted on 26 June 2021, there is no effort to change that, and without it the topic fails criterion 3.b. Armbrust The Homunculus 15:03, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
- Remove: the topic is definitely incomplete without one of the two main candidates. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 17:20, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
- Comment – @Armbrust and Bryanrutherford0: I have attempted to resolve the issues for William Goebel was delisted as FA, and this article is currently a Good Article Nominee. For the time being till someone takes it for review, can this removal candidacy be placed on hold? Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:56, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
- Sure, if you've got it at GAN, then we'll wait to see the outcome of that process. Good luck! -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 14:14, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
- Yes just to echo the above, myself and the other coordinators have no issue in holding until a GAN process can take place Thank you for taking the initiative! Aza24 (talk) 22:53, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
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)
- Remove, per Bryan. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 21:34, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
- Remove. I had a poke around the subject—bearing in mind the only birds I'd recognise are on a menu—to see if there would be some other way to restructure these featured articles in a topic that could conceivably be salvaged within a realistic time frame, but it seems no grouping that would include both wouldn't also include a substantial number of other, non eligible, articles too, unfortunately. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ X 12:42, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Remove, per Bryan; this no longer has enough substance to meet FT. Hog Farm Talk 19:22, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
- Remove, not only has the main article become a redirect, but without it a new topic would only be two articles. --K. Peake 07:31, 10 November 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)
- Remove per my above comment, article is no longer GA and appears to be needed for this topic. Spy-cicle💥 Talk? 17:07, 10 September 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)
- Comment - The Bella Twins were managers of the tag team. Which is weird, since this information isn't included in prose in the article (also, they were part of a feud against The Colóns), but in the In wrestling section instead, that was deleted because many reasons, like high level of vandalism or being very hard to source. About the Bella Twins article itself, I tried to remove no notable stuff and in-universe information, but since I'm on the beach, I can't work with the sources. I asked to close it, imrpove the sources in September and open a GAN again.--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 07:29, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
- Keep – not only is the main article lacking any mentions of The Bella Twins, but I can confirm as a current viewer of WWE that their partnership with John Morrison and The Miz is not still in existence, therefore it was only temporary so does not need to be part of the topic. --K. Peake 20:55, 10 October 2021 (UTC)