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]

Cruisers of Germany[edit]

6 articles
Featured list Cruisers of Germany
Bundesarchiv DVM 10 Bild-23-61-01, Kleiner Kreuzer "Karlsruhe".jpg
Featured list Armored cruisers (subtopic)
Featured list Heavy cruisers (subtopic)
Featured list Light cruisers (subtopic)
Featured list Protected cruisers (subtopic)
Featured list Unprotected cruisers (subtopic)


Yes, this monster has finally arrived. It comprises all of the modern cruisers built by Germany, starting in the mid-1880s and lasting until 1945; the postwar German navies have eschewed an overseas role in favor of its traditional (mainly, pre-Kaiser Bill) coastal defense role and haven't built anything larger than a destroyer since (though admittedly, today's destroyers dwarf the cruisers of a century ago in both size and capabilities). It might take me a little while to get the GTC tags on all of the pages, as there are so many, but I'll do my best to get them up quickly. Thanks for all who take the time to review the topic. Parsecboy (talk) 20:26, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Oh, well that's a lot less visually impressive. At least I learned this before I got through tagging all of the sub-topic articles. Parsecboy (talk) 23:16, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • With that in mind, this nomination will be moved from GTC to FTC. GamerPro64 01:16, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Council of Lithuania[edit]

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


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)


Good topic nominations[edit]

Unprotected cruisers of Germany[edit]

12 articles
Featured list Unprotected cruisers of Germany
S.M. kleiner kreuzer Gefion - restoration, borderless.jpg
Good article Schwalbe-class cruiser
Good article SMS Schwalbe
Good article SMS Sperber
Good article Bussard-class cruiser
Good article SMS Bussard
Good article SMS Falke
Good article SMS Seeadler
Good article SMS Condor
Good article SMS Cormoran
Good article SMS Geier
Good article SMS Gefion


This topic comprises the unprotected cruisers built by Germany in the 1880s-90s for service in its colonial empire. It's also the last component of this monster, which will also be appearing here shortly. Parsecboy (talk) 13:38, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Actinides[edit]

16 articles
Good article Actinides
HEUraniumC.jpg
Good article Actinium
Good article Thorium
Good article Protactinium
Featured article Uranium
Good article Neptunium
Featured article Plutonium
Good article Americium
Good article Curium
Good article Berkelium
Featured article Californium
Good article Einsteinium
Good article Fermium
Good article Mendelevium
Good article Nobelium
Good article Lawrencium


Contributor(s): WP Elements

Not enough chemistry topics! (Partial self nom, as I worked on some, but not all, of these articles.) --Double sharp (talk) 14:34, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Delegate comment - looks good so far. A book needs to be made for it. GamerPro64 17:36, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Book:Actinides? (That one has three more articles, mostly about environmental effects and nuclear fuel. Here I thought the easiest possible scope definition was "elements which are actinides", because the environmental effects of radioactivity and presence in nuclear fuel are not confined to just the actinides, but also to polonium through radium and fission products.) Double sharp (talk) 04:57, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
      • Yeah that works. GamerPro64 14:32, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support I just came here to nominate transuranium element, though actinides is a better grouping for this. interesting timing, great minds think alike. I have noticed all the work to bring many to GA, and then saw at least one was FA. I don't know any reason not to create this as a featured topic, which is also a new feature here to me as of right now.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 15:08, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
    • The transuraniums are a little further off, they'll need another five GAs to be a GT (main, Db, Sg, Bh, Lv). But we're working on it! :-) With period 7 and Ra additionally we'll have a period 7 GT as well. Double sharp (talk) 15:49, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Conditional support if the problems raised by the Book Report are fixed. Otherwise, impressive effort. igordebraga 02:14, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Fez (video game)[edit]

3 articles
Good article Fez
Fez (video game) cover art.png
Good article Development of Fez
Good article Phil Fish


GTC nomination—This proposed topic covers the video game Fez and its constituent subtopics: its development and its creator. There are no other subdivisions of the game with significant coverage for their own articles. All constituent articles are at GA class. Do I need the parenthetical disambiguation on this topic title? Thank you for your time czar  17:39, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Support; covers all pertinent topics since Polytron doesn't have its own article. Tezero (talk) 19:42, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Support - complete. (I reviewed Fez itself for GAN). --PresN 15:29, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support: I see no errors in coverage. Even if Polytron had its own article, including a developer in a video game topic is unnecessary 99% of the time. However, the inclusion of Phil Fish is clearly warranted, given the vast body of third-party coverage that associates him with Fez. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 07:07, 20 September 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)

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)
  • 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)

Topic removal candidates[edit]