Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Featured and Good topics in Wikipedia

This star symbolizes the featured topic candidates on Wikipedia.
GA icon symbolizing Good topic candidates on 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 good and featured topic criteria for criteria on both types of topic. If you would like to ask any questions about your topic and the featured topic process before submitting it, visit Wikipedia talk:Featured topic candidates.

Before nominating a topic, nominators may wish to receive feedback by listing it at Featured 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 delegates—GamerPro64 and Juhachi—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.

You may want to check previous archived nominations first:
Purge the cache to refresh this page

Featured content:

Good content:

Good and featured topic tools:

Nomination procedure[edit]

To create a new nomination use the form below (e.g., Wikipedia:Featured 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, and to create appropriate books (see Book:Jupiter for a good example). For detailed instructions on how to nominate topics or add articles to existing topics, see Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Nomination procedure.

Supporting and objecting[edit]

Please review all the articles of the nominated topic with the featured topic criteria in mind before deciding to support or oppose a nomination. Following the creation of the book, NoomBot will create a book report (see example) containing details about cleanup issues (only those that have been flagged with cleanup templates, so it may not pick up everything), and various tools to inspect external links or resolve disambiguation pages. It can be a good idea to check the report and inspect links to see if certain articles need some cleanup (doing this before the nomination is even better).

  • To edit nominations in order to comment on them, you must click the "edit" link to the right of the article nomination on which you wish to comment (not the overall page's "edit this page" link).
  • If you approve of a nomination, write '''Support''' followed by your reasons.
  • If you oppose a nomination, write '''Oppose''' or '''Object''' followed by the reason for your objection. Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to fix the source of the objection, the objection may be ignored.
    • To withdraw an objection, strike it out (with <s>...</s>) rather than removing it.

For a topic to be promoted to featured 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[edit]

Good topic nominations[edit]

2002–03 Arsenal F.C. season[edit]

3 articles
Good article 2002–03 Arsenal F.C. season
Arsenal Stadium Highbury east facade.jpg
Good article 2002 FA Community Shield
Good article 2003 FA Cup Final

Nominating this topic as it is a complete topic that has not previously been nominated. Any feedback is greatly appreciated. Credit should go to Lemonade51 who did the hard graft. Im merely ensuring his work is recognised! Cheers. NapHit (talk) 19:28, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I understand where you are coming from, probably needs a bit more input from other users. I'm unsure myself. NapHit (talk) 15:47, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Asher Vollmer[edit]

3 articles
Good article Asher Vollmer
Good article Puzzlejuice
Good article Threes

This is a good topic nomination for the indie video game developer Asher Vollmer and his games. The two subarticles are his games that have garnered enough reliable, secondary source attention to warrant their own articles. It's a small topic, but I believe it meets the criteria, and will continue to expand as he makes more games over his lifetime. – czar 15:56, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Support - good and complete. --PresN 16:23, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I am a bit skeptical of creating topics around people who just got kinda notable for 2 games. I propose having him instead be featured in the topic listed below here. Nergaal (talk) 03:20, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
But there's no such thing as "kinda notable"—he and his games are the subject of significant, independent coverage. For now, the topic is complete. – czar 23:55, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Greg Wohlwend (1st supplementary nomination)[edit]

This topic is already featured. It is being re-nominated to add additional items. See Wikipedia talk:Featured topics/Greg Wohlwend for discussions of the topic's previous nominations. The additional items are:

  1. TouchTone
9 articles
Good article Greg Wohlwend
Greg Wohlwend headshot full frame.jpg
Good article Puzzlejuice
Good article Hundreds
Good article Ridiculous Fishing
Good article Threes
Good article Mikengreg
Good article Solipskier
Good article Gasketball
Good article TouchTone

Wohlwend released a new game: TouchTone. Brought it to GA, now I bring it here. – czar 05:08, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Support addition; I doubt this will be the last one. --PresN 05:28, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support addition; — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:43, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support but I think you can add Asher Vollmer GA too. Nergaal (talk) 15:34, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
I didn't add Vollmer since he isn't a hierarchical entity that scaffolds like Mikengreg. I wouldn't include Wohlwend's other collaborators here unless their companies were separate entities sufficiently notable for their own pages. – czar 23:57, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

English Heritage sites in Somerset[edit]

13 articles
Featured list List of English Heritage properties in Somerset
Glastonbury Tribunal 2.jpg
Good article Cleeve Abbey
Good article Dunster Butter Cross
Good article Farleigh Hungerford Castle
Good article Gallox Bridge, Dunster
Good article Muchelney Abbey
Good article Nunney Castle
Good article Sir Bevil Grenville's Monument
Good article Stanton Drew stone circles
Good article Stoney Littleton Long Barrow
Good article The Abbot's Fish House, Meare
Good article The Tribunal, Glastonbury
Good article Yarn Market, Dunster

The List of English Heritage properties in Somerset is an FL which lists all 12 sites that English Heritage manage within the county. Each of the articles about the sites is now a Good Article, therefore I think this meets the requirements for a Good Topic. If a brief description is needed part of the lead from the list could be included, but I am unclear where to put this.— Rod talk 18:37, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Support - great job! You can just add the introductory paragraph to this page- stick <noinclude>Intro</noinclude> above the topic box on this nomination page, and the closer will put in on the actual topic page when they promote it. --PresN 19:18, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I've attempted a short intro paragraph above - if something longer is needed just let me know and I will add to it.— Rod talk 19:32, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support seems complete. Nergaal (talk) 03:22, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Hrabri-class submarines[edit]

3 articles
Good article Hrabri-class submarines
Yugoslav submarine Hrabri.jpg
Good article Hrabri
Good article Nebojša

Contributor(s): Peacemaker67

All three articles are GA, and fall within a clearly defined scope of a single class of submarines. The three articles are linked, and have a common template. There were only two submarines of this class, so there are no gaps in coverage. --Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 02:49, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Support The articles look good, and they're all GAs. Well done.--ɱ (talk · vbm) 03:08, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Complete topic. Adabow (talk) 05:38, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Para-skiing classification[edit]

16 articles
Good article Para-alpine skiing classification
Good article Para-Nordic skiing classification
Allison Jones competing in the Super G during the second day of the 2012 IPC Nor Am Cup at Copper Mountain.jpg
Good article LW1
Good article LW2
Good article LW3
Good article LW4
Good article LW5/7
Good article LW6/8
Good article LW9
Good article LW10
Good article LW11
Good article LW12
Good article B1
Good article B2
Good article B3
Good article Snowboarding

Contributor(s): Hawkeye7 and User:LauraHale

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

Small note, a reference in LW12 is displaying a reference date error. ResMar 15:35, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
  • This is a really tricky topic to follow. I strongly suggest creating a short para to present/introduce the topic as per this. Nergaal (talk) 05:01, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
    I have nowhere to put it until it becomes a good topic, but it would read something like this:

    Para-alpine skiing classification and Para-Nordic skiing classification use a common classification system for disability skiing sports. The classification system is designed to ensure fair competition between skiers with different types of disabilities. They are grouped into three general types: standing, blind and sitting. The first classification systems for skiing were developed in Scandinavia in the 1960s, with early systems designed for skiers with amputations. As special equipment was developed, it was extended to allow participation by skiers with spinal cord injuries. The goal of the early classification systems was functional but ended up being medical classification systems. In more recent times the classification system has evolved to become an evidence-based system as opposed to a performance-based system so as not to punish elite athletes whose performance makes them appear in a higher class alongside competitors who train less. The classifications for skiing are LW1, LW2, LW3, LW4, LW5/7, LW6/8, and LW9, where LW stands for Locomotor Winter. There are also three sit-ski classifications: LW10, LW11 and LW12, and three classifications for blind athletes: B1, B2 and B3.

This does not explain how the 10+ categories are linked together. To non-experts the topic appears as a random collection of letters and numbers. Nergaal (talk) 00:22, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Well, yes, but the meanings of the classifications are the subject of the articles. Usually, the non-expert sees the event at the Winter Paralympics on TV, and uses the Wikipedia to find out more about what the classifications mean. I've added a bit more to the text. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:53, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Seems to pass all GT criteria. Good work.--ɱ (talk · vbm) 18:35, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delegate Comment - There's been only been three separate commentators on this nomination with only one voting for a Support. There needs to be more discussion made for a consensus. GamerPro64 14:23, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support All the articles in the field are of Ga status. This seems like a Good Topic to me. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 02:06, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose inclusion of more than one sport. Right now you have nordic and alpine skiing, and snowboarding. For now I would suggest just do nordic skiing as a lead article, then just get an article titled "Winter Paralympic Games classifications" which would include the other two, PLUS the other four or so sports. The structure is getting messy by adding more than one sport. Also, the intro paragraph should kinda focus on how up to ~4 only legs are covered, 5-8 arms, and B are vision ones. Nergaal (talk) 22:27, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
    As explained in the snowboarding article, snowboarding is considered alpine skiing by the IOC and IPC. The double lead article is because Para-Alpine and Para-Nordic share the same classifications. The next article in the hierarchy is Disability sport classification, of which this is a subtopic. I don't see the need for an intro paragraph at all; none of my other Good Topics have one. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:23, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
I appreciate you working with the reviewers. Nergaal (talk) 02:44, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support with single lead article- I'd rather see the lead article as Para-alpine skiing classification, with Para-nordic skiing classification as one of the child articles like snowboarding. I'd support either way, though. I've added your intro paragraph onto this page the way the nominations template now puts it when you make a new nomination; the closer will put it on the actual topic page when they promote. Could you add a bit about snowboarding being a subcat of alpine skiing, though? --PresN 19:28, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
    Done. I don't mind making Para-nordic one of the child articles like snowboarding. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:11, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Topic removal candidates[edit]

Minas Geraes-class battleships[edit]

The following two topics are 100% included into an overview topic, therefore I don't see the point of having the additional rather obscure mini-topics:

Featured topic
3 articles
Featured article Rivadavia-class battleship
Rivadavia Battleship LOC 14781u.jpg
Featured article ARA Rivadavia
Featured article ARA Moreno

Featured topic
3 articles
Featured article Minas Geraes-class battleship
E Minas Geraes 1910 altered.jpg
Featured article Brazilian battleship Minas Geraes
Featured article Brazilian battleship São Paulo

The overview topic is:

Featured topic
11 articles
Featured article South American dreadnought race
Brazilian battleship Minas Geraes firing a broadside.jpg
Featured article Minas Geraes-class battleship
Featured article Brazilian battleship Minas Geraes
Featured article Brazilian battleship São Paulo
Featured article Brazilian battleship Rio de Janeiro
Featured article Rivadavia-class battleship
Featured article ARA Rivadavia
Featured article ARA Moreno
Featured article Almirante Latorre-class battleship
Featured article Chilean battleship Almirante Latorre
Featured article Chilean battleship Almirante Cochrane

As a further argument, the "Almirante Latorre-class battleship" does not exist. Nergaal (talk) 05:07, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Delist - 100% overlap with parent topic for both subtopics. --PresN 05:17, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Delist - yeah, better just leave the bigger one. igordebraga 22:29, 16 May 2015 (UTC)