Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/Manhattan Project/archive1: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 04:58, 15 November 2016

Set of articles about the Manhattan Project, covering the articles in its NavBox

Manhattan Project

100 articles

Contributor(s): Hawkeye7

All the articles in the topic have passed GA or FA --Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:44, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wouldn't an overview topic be more applicable for this subject? There are simply too many articles that could have something to do with the Manhattan Project, and a delist on any one of them would delist the topic. For instance, if you're going to include Uranium, then it doesn't make sense to keep out enriched uranium (which links to the Manhattan Project in its lead) since that was what was actually used in Little Boy. --十八 06:00, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's already an overview topic. It represents only the most significant 100 articles in the Manhattan Project category. And enriched uranium is not in the category. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:58, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is not a good way to have an overview topic. Even of it is right, it looks like a mish-mash of articles. The first step I would suggest is create a FL on "People ivolved in the Manhattan Project". Maybe even a Sites of GA/FA. Nergaal (talk) 09:31, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There are 361 articles on Manhattan Project people, but there were thousands of people, so no FL is possible. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:59, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Same way you listed here ~50 people you can have an overview FL on people with only 50 of the 361 articles. Nergaal (talk) 07:00, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There will be no lead article
There will be no common template, common category or super-category.
Every article within the scope of the topic that is not included in the topic will not also be within the scope of a non-lead article that is included in the topic

In other words, it will never form a featured topic. Whereas the proposed topic does. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:10, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - This seems to fail 1d of the criteria (There are no obvious gaps (missing or low quality articles) in the topic. A topic must not cherry pick only the best articles to become featured together). Category:Manhattan Project has 84 pages in it with another nine subcats, I fail to see why some articles have been selected for this topic, whilst others haven't. Of course, I'm happy to proven wrong, but I don't think this meets the criteria. Maybe, some of the articles could be nominated as smaller subtopics if they are complete. Sorry Hawkeye, I realise the huge amount of effort you've put into this, and I thank you a lot for that. — Yellow Dingo (talk) 04:57, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 120: / Line 120: @@
 ::::In other words, it will ''never'' form a featured topic. Whereas the proposed topic does. [[User:Hawkeye7|Hawkeye7]] ([[User talk:Hawkeye7|talk]]) 11:10, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
+*'''Oppose''' - This seems to fail 1d of [[WP:FT?|the criteria]] ({{xt|There are no obvious gaps (missing or low quality articles) in the topic. A topic must not cherry pick only the best articles to become featured together}}). [[:Category:Manhattan Project]] has 84 pages in it with another nine subcats, I fail to see why some articles have been selected for this topic, whilst others haven't. Of course, I'm happy to proven wrong, but I don't think this meets the criteria. Maybe, some of the articles could be nominated as smaller subtopics if they are complete. Sorry Hawkeye, I realise the huge amount of effort you've put into this, and I thank you a lot for that. —&nbsp;'''[[User:Yellow Dingo|<b style="color:#FFCC33">Yellow</b> <b style="color:brown">Dingo</b>]]'''&#160;[[User talk:Yellow Dingo|<b style="color:BLUE">(talk)</b>]] 04:57, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 <noinclude>[[Category:Featured topic nominations]] [[Category:Featured topic nominations/2016]]</noinclude>