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
Shortcuts:

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]

Council of Lithuania[edit]

3 articles
Good article Council of Lithuania
Signatarai.Signatories of Lithuania.jpg
Featured article Act of Independence
Featured article Signatories


Contributor(s): M.K, Neelix

M.K, the primary contributor to these three articles, has left Wikipedia, and I have been unsuccessful in contacting him. I believe these articles meet the featured topic criteria because the topic is complete, and each article in the topic is either at good status or featured status. There is the main article about the council, a second article about the document the council was created to prepare and sign, and a third article about the members of the council, which is to say the signatories of the document. --Neelix (talk) 15:05, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment - This is rather interesting. All three of these articles were promoted in 2007/2008 and are now being nominated for FTC in 2014. Just to make sure, all three of the articles were looked over to make certain that they still met the criteria of GA and FA before being nominated, right? GamerPro64 15:44, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
They appear to me to still meet the criteria. I have repaired the two instances of link rot that developed. Neelix (talk) 17:36, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - there are a number of places in both the Act of Independence and Members articles that lack citations - for instance, the table in the Members article has citations for their political affiliation and the dates of birth and death but not for their profession/education. These problems would prevent either article from passing FAC/FLC in their current state. Parsecboy (talk) 12:07, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
I have added the relevant citations to the profession column in the Members article. As I do not know Lithuanian, I have contacted Novickas, one of the primary contributors to these articles, to request help in addressing the remaining sourcing issues. Neelix (talk) 17:34, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Hello all - thanks for contacting me, User:Neelix, and for fixing the dead links. I think we also need to contact User:Renata3, who worked on the articles and still edits once in a while. About referencing. In the signatories (aka Members) article - I believe the sources in the table headings discuss them collectively. That's true for the single online reference (currently no. 2, [1]) that discusses their various occupations and backgrounds. And I think it's also true of the two references for their political affiliations & date and place of birth and death (currently references 3 and 4, which I don't have access to). Is a single reference for all the column entries in a table no longer acceptable? I could see it as unacceptable in the case of a longer list (like brain tumor patients), because it would seem improbable, but this is list is only 20 people and given their importance it’s not startling to see that a single source discusses all of them. (Haven’t looked at the Act article issues yet – may not have time to do that for a week or so. In the meantime, Parsec, could you mention the issues at the Act talk page, or stick cite-needed tags where you think they're needed?) Novickas (talk) 13:49, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
  • The topic seems fine, but I would prefer to have the last article lined as signatories not as members. Nergaal (talk) 08:08, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Done. Neelix (talk) 15:56, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Do you feel that your concerns have been addressed, Nergaal? Neelix (talk) 16:10, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Delegate comment - This nomination has been up for over a month and besides a few comments made to it, there has been neither a Support or Oppose. There needs to be some more discussion before a consensus is reached. GamerPro64 03:47, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Novickas said here yesterday that he/she expected to have the concerns that have been raised addressed within the next couple of days. Neelix (talk) 19:05, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment (am probably too involved to feel comfortable supporting). I think I've addressed all the referencing issues at Act of Independence of Lithuania. There are maybe still two uncited statements at Council of Lithuania (a GA). Which I think I can fix by tomorrow (Sunday) afternoon. Novickas (talk) 16:50, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
Do you feel that your concerns have been addressed, Parsecboy? Neelix (talk) 04:39, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for pinging me - I had forgotten I'd commented on this FTC! There are still a couple of places that lack citations - I added {{cn}} tags on them so they're easier to spot. Parsecboy (talk) 12:10, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Hello, User:Parsecboy - the cn tags were helpful - been looking at the articles for too long. I believe they're answered now. Your thoughts? Novickas (talk) 14:38, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for taking care of those so quickly. I think I can support at this point. Great work! Parsecboy (talk) 16:23, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Good topic nominations[edit]

Music of the Final Fantasy series (4th supplementary nomination)[edit]

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

  1. Music of Lightning Returns: Final Fantasy XIII
22 articles
Good article Music of the Final Fantasy series
FFMusicLogo.png
Good article Final Fantasy I and II
Good article Final Fantasy III
Good article Final Fantasy IV
Good article Final Fantasy V
Good article Final Fantasy VI
Good article Final Fantasy VII series
Good article Final Fantasy VIII
Good article Final Fantasy IX
Good article Final Fantasy X
Good article Final Fantasy X-2
Good article Final Fantasy XI
Good article Final Fantasy XII
Good article Final Fantasy XIII
Good article Final Fantasy XIII-2
Good article Lightning Returns: Final Fantasy XIII
Good article Final Fantasy XIV
Good article Final Fantasy Tactics series
Good article Final Fantasy Crystal Chronicles series
Good article Chocobo series
Featured list Final Fantasy compilation albums
Good article Final Fantasy concerts


With support from @PresN, who both created the topic and handled the last three additions to it, I have created Music of Lightning Returns: Final Fantasy XIII and brought it to GA status, and wish to add it to the Music of the Final Fantasy series Good Topic. Earlier this year, there was not enough information available to create this article, but recent additions and my own research has enable its creation. This should be the last addition for quite some time, as Final Fantasy XV is still a long way off from release, and the creation of a dedicated article about its music is likely further off still. --ProtoDrake (talk) 17:07, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Inside No. 9[edit]

7 articles
Good article Inside No. 9
Good article "Sardines" (Inside No. 9)
Good article "Last Gasp" (Inside No. 9)
Good article "A Quiet Night In"
Good article "The Understudy" (Inside No. 9)
Good article "Tom & Gerri"
Good article "The Harrowing" (Inside No. 9)


Contributor(s): J Milburn (self nomination)

Inside No. 9 is one of the better things I've seen on TV in the last few years. Almost all critics loved it, but the viewing figures weren't great. Hopefully this topic does Inside No. 9 justice- it contains articles on all six episodes and the article on the programme itself. I hope to get some of them up to FA status at some point, and I look forward to the second series, when I'll (hopefully!) be expanding this topic considerably. All comments welcome. --J Milburn (talk) 21:27, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Support Great set of articles; nice work. I'm sure you'll be able to maintain the quality of the main article as the second season airs. 23W 23:21, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Six articles in the series, all at GA. Did "The Inventors" have any review coverage? czar  19:35, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the support. A few blogs picked up on "The Inventors", but nothing in any newspapers or from major critics. The section mostly relies on primary sources as there wasn't much else available. J Milburn (talk) 08:01, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment If a second series is already in production, this topic will become unstable once it airs. I would assume season articles and an episode list would also be made eventually, too. So I would recommend this topic being just for season 1, and then creating further topics for later seasons, which is the norm at WP:GT#Theatre, film and drama.-- 20:38, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the comment. I've no objection to this being a season 1 topic in theory, but I've no intention of creating separate season articles in the short or medium term; the main article is only at 17kb readable prose size (plus some tables/lists), and covering the second series would not push it much higher. Per WP:TOOBIG, this is a perfectly manageable length. The second series is, in theory, in production, but we don't know when it'll be appearing, so this could be stable for a while yet. Especially given the small number of episodes, I would have thought that series articles would be a little excessive before there were three or four series at least. J Milburn (talk) 22:04, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Delegate Comment - Been over a month since the last comment was made here. While there are two Supports for the topic, there needs to be more input to gain a consensus for it. GamerPro64 02:10, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

2003 Pacific typhoon season[edit]

13 articles
2003 Pacific typhoon season
2003 Pacific typhoon season summary.jpg
Good article Typhoon Kujira (2003)
Good article Tropical Storm Linfa (2003)
Good article Typhoon Soudelor (2003)
Good article Typhoon Imbudo
Good article Tropical Storm Koni
Good article Tropical Storm Morakot (2003)
Good article Typhoon Etau (2003)
Good article Typhoon Krovanh (2003)
Good article Typhoon Dujuan (2003)
Featured article Typhoon Maemi
Good article Typhoon Nepartak (2003)
Good article Typhoon Lupit (2003)


Contributor(s): Hurricanehink, Juliancolton, TheAustinMan

The 2003 Pacific typhoon season, although producing a below average number of tropical cyclones, featured a plethora of storms striking anywhere from the Philippines to the Korean peninsula. This topic has been in the works for several months, and after lots of hard work, features 13 meticulously cited articles—12 good articles and one featured article—amounting to roughly 380,000 bytes of information providing what I believe to be the most comprehensive information on these storms. I hope you find this collection of articles covering the 2003 Pacific typhoon season a good read. TheAustinMan(Talk·Works) 04:00, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Comment It's a reasonable-looking set, but with a couple minor caveats: it might be good to state the selection criteria for what storm and typhoons got articles explicitly in the nom. I believe it's everything that made landfall, or otherwise caused disasters, but that's not stated explicitly. Secondly, the image is a bit small, and looks a bit odd because of that. I'd try to fix that slightly, perhaps by vertically aligning it if it can't be made bigger. Otherwise, I can't see a reason not to promote. Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:26, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
The inclusion criteria was a bit loose with 2003 Pacific typhoon season, but we decided that the individual storm articles would be made if the storms received press coverage on its impacts outside of meteorological reports and disaster databases. TheAustinMan(Talk·Works) 23:14, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
And, largely whether there was enough info for a storm to have its own article. But that is largely the same as what the above user said. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:50, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Delegate Comment - This nomination has been up for over a month now. Gotta have some more discussion so a consensus is reached. @Adam Cuerden:, is everything sufficient now? GamerPro64 23:56, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
    • @GamerPro64: Well, if AutinMan and HurricaneHink are in agreement that everything that should be covered is, I don't see a problem. Two experts agreeing are better than one. Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:10, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
  • @TheAustinMan, Hurricanehink, so I just spent a while poking around—I'm not so familiar with the tropical storm quarter of WP. Where was this discussion had about which storms get their own articles? Is it all in one location? Saw that it wasn't on the talk page of the parent article so I'm not sure where it would be. czar  19:47, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
  • A few times over the past few years. Mostly, it just follows the WP guidelines, whether there is enough info in general to split it off from the season article. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:49, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm assuming good faith that due diligence was done, but I'd still like to see the main discussion(s) if you can point me in the right direction czar  00:00, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Well, there wasn't a primary discussion. We're just following Wikipedia:Article size. There have been numerous discussions over the years that confirm that every named tropical cyclone is notable enough to appear on Wikipedia, so whether they get articles or not come down to whether there is enough info to warrant splitting it. It's essentially an editor's decision whether there is enough info or not. There are often cases where an article has enough info to exist on its own, or it could be condensed and summarized down, but the rule of thumbs is that the season article is the main article, with individual storm articles as sub-articles that are essentially split. This is by practice and some discussions that have taken place over the past nine years. I could get the discussion if you want to, but I'm not sure where it would be exactly! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:19, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
I understand. More for the sake of verifiability, I'd just like to be able to double-check that the scope is complete before I can put my support in the ring. Not sure you'll need it, though! czar  23:02, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Well, the deadliest storm without an article is Melor, which only killed four people and was short lived, and the costliest storm without an article was Chan-hom, but only due to a ship-wreck. Therefore, the scope is complete, and no other storms are going to get articles, on the simple basis that none of the others have enough additional info. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:02, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support I think that the assurance by the noms that this set is complete should be trusted. In my mind Hink and AutinMan are some of the best and most knowledgeable editors of hurricane articles. Also all articles look good. NickGibson3900 Talk 07:31, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - basically per Nick: I'm not an expert in this area, but I trust their judgement on what storms should and should not have articles. Great work! Parsecboy (talk) 12:18, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Topic removal candidates[edit]