Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to 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 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:
Purge the cache to refresh this page

Featured content:

Good content:

Featured and good topic tools:

Nomination procedure[edit]

To 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 objecting[edit]

Please 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.

  • 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. Supports that clearly evaluate the criteria will be weighted more than those that do not.
  • 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 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[edit]

Good topic nominations[edit]

Kanye West studio albums (1st supplementary nomination)[edit]

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

  1. Donda
13 articles
Kanye West studio albums
Kanye West.jpg
The College Dropout
Late Registration
Graduation
808s & Heartbreak (subtopic)
My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy
Watch the Throne
Yeezus
The Life of Pablo
Ye (subtopic)
Kids See Ghosts (subtopic)
Jesus Is King
Donda

This topic's retention period was nearly a month ago, but I nominated Donda way back in October for GA status with this in mind. The album did take a while to get picked up, though it has passed now after a smooth review! --K. Peake 08:09, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

  • Support as the GA reviewer of Donda (with additional comment): I would suggest maybe changing the current topic image the Donda "cover art". Realmaxxver (talk) 09:04, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Realmaxxver I understand that you are making this point since it's the only new article, but shouldn't the image for the supplementary nomination be the same as the one for the actual topic? --K. Peake 10:30, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Pretty sure you are right. crossed out. Realmaxxver (talk) 10:35, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Comments Unsure about Rap Mais reliability, it looks like a blog. The Source needs at least one wikilink. Page six → People magazine, very different. Remove Appleinsider, on their "about us" page: "Our editorial staff has wide latitude to review and report on what they want, how they want." Henceforth, there is no editorial review. I'm unsure about the reliability of Distractify as it is co-founded by a Youtuber, no editorial staff. When translated I can't be sure regarding Buro 24/7, I would stay away from these. Maybe the album notes can replace this source easily? Doubts regarding "Southpawer" source, but the same information can be found on a Billboard article, Hot New Hip Hop. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 13:09, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
  • I removed or replaced any of the questionable sources, also I must have missed The Source due to the large amount of refs so have wikilinked now and it is uncertain who added Page Six for the People ref because I remember that being the first from the publication and displaying as such, so I changed it back to citing People. --K. Peake 14:23, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
  • I checked everything you did and now I support the nomination. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 11:27, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Support: Straightforward addition of the latest album to the existing topic. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 15:22, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Tuvalu at the Olympics (1st supplementary nomination)[edit]

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

  1. Tuvalu at the 2020 Summer Olympics
6 articles
Tuvalu at the Olympics
Flag of Tuvalu.svg
Tuvalu Association of Sports and National Olympic Committee
Tuvalu at the 2008 Summer Olympics
Tuvalu at the 2012 Summer Olympics
Tuvalu at the 2016 Summer Olympics
Tuvalu at the 2020 Summer Olympics

Tuvalu's competed at the Olympics four times now, and since I've gotten the latest occasion up to GA, here's this supplementary nom. All the articles in this topic are GA. AryKun (talk) 02:33, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

  • Support Comment you should not be using a ref in the lead for the info about the event getting postponed, as that can be written out and sourced in background. It is ironic for me to be the first to comment since I was the one who nominated the topic for removal before this was even a GAN and outside of this issue, good job on this article less than six months after the event; it is well-written and covered by reliable sources. --K. Peake 08:23, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Removed the ref from the lead and added the info to Background as well. AryKun (talk) 12:17, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Nice work there, the prose in the body looks very smooth itself! --K. Peake 14:25, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Support: Straightforward addition of the latest iteration to the existing topic. Good work! -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 15:36, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Support. Straightforward. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:39, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Interstate 82[edit]

Interstate 82 (I-82) is an Interstate Highway in the Pacific Northwest region of the United States that passes through parts of Washington and Oregon. It passes through Yakima, the Yakima Valley agricultural region, and the Tri-Cities area, also serving as part of the link between Seattle and Boise, Idaho. The highway has three auxiliary routes, all in Washington: I-182, connecting to parts of the Tri-Cities; State Route 821, traversing part of the Yakima River Canyon; and State Route 823, a short highway connecting Yakima to Selah.

4 articles
Interstate 82
I-82.svg
Interstate 182
Washington State Route 821
Washington State Route 823
Contributor(s): SounderBruce

The three "children" highways related to Interstate 82 (one Interstate, two state routes) are now good articles, so this should satisfy the GT criteria. All four articles were written to modern highway guidelines and are among my finest work, and just about cover everything there is to know about Interstate 82. Fun fact: This highway probably carried some of the hops used in the last American beer you drank, as the Yakima Valley provides 73 percent of the nation's crop. --SounderBruce 06:18, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

  • Support Comments I am unsure about the usage of Port of Grandview for Interstate 82; what makes the source reliable? Also, the ref for the beginning of existence date is not needed in Interstate 182's infobox since that is written out in the body and ref 25 of Washington State Route 823 needs formatting fixes due to chapter-url showing up as needing a check. This will not be required for me to place my eventual support behind the GT, but I would recommend beefing up the second para of this nomination slightly; the topic is heavily detailed and all of the articles have reached their statuses properly! --K. Peake 21:50, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
    • @Kyle Peake: Thanks for the feedback. I've replaced the Grandview citation and fixed the other errors. SounderBruce 02:18, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Support: I'm a little unclear about the scope, but I suppose it seems coherent enough. It's got a navbox linking them all, though no category structure. The articles are excellent, certainly! -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 14:26, 17 January 2022 (UTC)


Like a Prayer[edit]

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.

10 articles
Like a Prayer
OhFatherMadonnaUnderGround (cropped).jpg
"Like a Prayer"
"Express Yourself"
"Cherish"
"Oh Father"
"Dear Jessie"
"Keep It Together"
Blond Ambition World Tour
Blond Ambition World Tour Live
Madonna: Truth or Dare
Contributor(s): IndianBio, 11JORN, Chrishm21 and Theknine2

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 umbrella of Universal, therefore it might be some bias. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 15:12, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Line 1 (Sound Transit) stations (1st supplementary nomination)[edit]

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:

  1. Northgate station (Sound Transit)
  2. Roosevelt station (Sound Transit)
  3. U District station


17 articles
Line 1 (Sound Transit) stations
Northbound Link train at Othello Station (31003193486).jpg
Northgate
Roosevelt
U District
University of Washington
Capitol Hill
Westlake
University Street
Pioneer Square
International District/Chinatown
Stadium
SODO
Beacon Hill
Mount Baker
Columbia City
Othello
Rainier Beach
Tukwila International Boulevard
SeaTac/Airport
Angle Lake

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 16:02, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Support 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)
    Hi SounderBruce, did you have a chance to address Kyle's comments above? Aza24 (talk) 00:59, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
    The sources used are still appropriate for content at the GA level, especially government blogs (such as SDOT Blog) and prominent local blogs (SeaTac Blog, CHS, WSB) that get republished into the newspaper of record (The Seattle Times). The Huffington Post piece was written by an architecture critic for a normal newspaper, so I don't see it being problematic; it certainly did not come up as problematic in the FAC. These suggestions are far beyond what is required for a GTC, as it should have been brought up in the individual GANs. SounderBruce 04:12, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
    I wouldn't think trying to improve articles is ever inappropriate for really any venue on Wikipedia, and I have no doubt the suggestions came in good faith. Your rationales re sourcing seem reasonable, and I wonder if Kyle Peake would agree with them. Aza24 (talk) 05:29, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
    Things sometimes don't come up in a GAR or FTC because not everything is always spotted in those processes, also I have struck out my comments about the sources because your explanations justify their reliability and you should have posted this earlier to address me. However, what I wrote about the small sizes of the location section and the final part of the history section for two respective articles still stands, as does the problem with refs in infoboxes. --K. Peake 08:25, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
    All fixed, but I'm still of the opinion that these "issues" are incredibly minor, and moreover changes to articles in the existing GT should not affect the supplementary nomination. SounderBruce 04:50, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

King for a Day... Fool for a Lifetime[edit]

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.

4 articles
King for a Day... Fool for a Lifetime
Drooker style dog.svg
"Digging the Grave"
"Ricochet"
"Evidence"
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)
Ref 48 updated. If it's deemed a necessity for this topic I can add another prose section to the article but as it stands the information is still validly presented. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ X 09:53, 6 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)
  • 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 and the 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 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 and you 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 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 09:49, 28 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)
  • Director comment - This nomination has been open since September and only one declaration of support. There needs more votes here or this will have to be closed as not promoted. GamerPro64 16:51, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Topic removal candidates[edit]

Saint Kitts and Nevis at the Olympics[edit]

8 articles
Saint Kitts and Nevis at the Olympics
Flag of Saint Kitts and Nevis.svg
Saint Kitts and Nevis at the 1996 Summer Olympics
Saint Kitts and Nevis at the 2000 Summer Olympics
Saint Kitts and Nevis at the 2004 Summer Olympics
Saint Kitts and Nevis at the 2008 Summer Olympics
Saint Kitts and Nevis at the 2012 Summer Olympics
Saint Kitts and Nevis at the 2016 Summer Olympics
Saint Kitts and Nevis Olympic Committee

Unlike the previous removal candidacy for the GT, a required article in Saint Kitts and Nevis at the 2020 Summer Olympics is missing over two months after the event and is merely at start-class, definitely meaning this topic does not meet criterion 3.b. --K. Peake 21:24, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

  • Remove: Definitely a necessary article for this topic. Hard to keep something like this up to date! -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 21:33, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Remove per nom. Nobody seems to come forward regarding improving the last installments. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 16:11, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Remove per nom. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:40, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Djibouti at the Olympics[edit]

9 articles
Djibouti at the Olympics
Flag of Djibouti.svg
Djibouti at the 1984 Summer Olympics
Djibouti at the 1988 Summer Olympics
Djibouti at the 1992 Summer Olympics
Djibouti at the 1996 Summer Olympics
Djibouti at the 2000 Summer Olympics
Djibouti at the 2008 Summer Olympics
Djibouti at the 2012 Summer Olympics
Djibouti at the 2016 Summer Olympics

The article Djibouti at the 2020 Summer Olympics is not GA nominated yet over three months after the event and is merely at start-class, meaning this topic fails criterion 3.b. strongly. --K. Peake 21:15, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

  • Remove: Definitely a necessary article for this topic. Hard to keep something like this up to date! -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 21:32, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Remove per nom. Nobody seems to come forward regarding improving the last installments. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 16:11, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Tuvalu at the Olympics[edit]

5 articles
Tuvalu at the Olympics
Flag of Tuvalu.svg
Tuvalu Association of Sports and National Olympic Committee
Tuvalu at the 2008 Summer Olympics
Tuvalu at the 2012 Summer Olympics
Tuvalu at the 2016 Summer Olympics

The article Tuvalu at the 2020 Summer Olympics is not GA nominated yet over three months after the event and is even a stub, meaning this topic fails criterion 3.b. heavily. The 2020 Summer Olympics article that was originally missing has now passed as a GA and has no noticeable issues outside of a ref being used in the lead for info that should be sourced in the body, so I no longer believe this topic should be removed. --K. Peake 08:25, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

In that case, the removal can hold off until the GAN is reviewed. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 15:16, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
This was nominated for removal by me before any effort to rework the 2020 article had been put in, but I agree with the above that it should be on hold until we know the GAR's result. --K. Peake 09:56, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
Kyle Peake, Bryanrutherford0, Tuvalu at the 2020 Summer Olympics has passed GA, so this topic can be kept now, I think. AryKun (talk) 14:18, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
Looks great! Now, you should make a supplemental nomination to add the new article to the topic. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 00:37, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Done, created supplementary nom. AryKun (talk) 02:46, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Carnivàle[edit]

5 articles
Carnivàle
Carnivale Ferris Wheel Original.jpg
Episodes
Characters
Mythology
Awards and nominations

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 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)
  • Remove this list provides notable information about the topic, so its status being lost warrants demotion. --K. Peake 07:04, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Remove per nom. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 11:45, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Remove per nom. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:42, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Characters of Halo[edit]

6 articles
Characters of Halo
Guilty-spark minor.png
Master Chief
Cortana
Arbiter
Gravemind
343 Guilty Spark

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 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)
  • Remove per nom. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 11:38, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Remove per nom. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:42, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Millennium Park[edit]

17 articles
Millennium Park
2005-10-13 2880x1920 chicago above millennium park.jpg
AT&T Plaza
Boeing Galleries
BP Pedestrian Bridge
Chase Promenade
Cloud Gate
Crown Fountain
Exelon Pavilions
Grant Park Music Festival
Harris Theater
Jay Pritzker Pavilion
Lurie Garden
McCormick Tribune Plaza & Ice Rink
McDonald's Cycle Center
Park Grill
Wrigley Square
Burnham Pavilions

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)
  • Remove per nom. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 18:43, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

John Morrison and the Miz[edit]

4 articles
John Morrison and the Miz
Morrison & Miz WTT Champions.jpg

John Morrison

Mike Mizanin

The Bella Twins

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)
  • @Kyle Peake: I think as current viewer of WWE, you can confirm that the partnership of John Morrison and The Miz has also ended (especially after Morrison’s release), therefore it was only temporary. So by your logic above we don’t need the topic at all. Armbrust The Homunculus 15:27, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
  • I can confirm that Morrison has since left WWE, but the comment was posted back when they were still active partners. Also, him and the Miz were a team throughout their joint time in the company, while the Bella Twins only joined temporarily so I logically believe this topic can do without them. --K. Peake 07:56, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
Keep - Hmm, it's an odd one - They did have a storyline where the two were involved with the Bella twins, but I'd hardly say it made them a part of this topic. As far as I remember it was around the end of 2008/start of 2009. The only time "Bella" appears in either John Morrison or The Miz is in Miz's article several years after they had ended their tag team (although they did reunite later). I'd suggest the three articles Miz, Morrison and the tag team article is the scope of the articles required. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 16:24, 5 January 2022 (UTC)