Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/Failed log/2014

French Comedy Films

French comedy films

1 articles

Contributor(s): Nicowritter

--Nicowritter (talk) 16:45, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fails to satisfy WP:WIAFT criteria: The lead article isn't a featured list, nor are there any other articles in the proposed topic.--十八 21:12, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pixar

Contributor(s): Mercurywoodrose, Pixar work group

Only 2 other Pixar feature films have been released:, Cars 2 and Brave, that are not GA. I think this qualifies the topic for GA, or is at least very close. I am not sure if the title should be Pixar films, as the list of Pixar films is not FL. I am also not sure (and i am also not Luke Wilson:)) if the lists of accolades should be included.This process is new to me, so I wont be disappointed if it doesnt qualify. I am not part of the Pixar working group.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:11, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking part of the Featured Topics process. You mentioned that the Cars 2 and Brave articles are not at least to the status of GA. Because of that, according to Featured Topics criteria 1.d, a topic must not have obvious gaps in it. Which makes the topic incomplete. Hopefully when the other two articles reached GA status it can be able to be part of this topic and it can become a Good Topic itself. If you have any questions about Featured Topics, please ask either I or Juhachi on advice or go to the questions page if you have questions on future topics you are working on. But until then, I will have to Fail this nomination. GamerPro64 18:24, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback, I now understand the process better. it wasnt crystal clear how this process went, though I suppose i could have read the criteria more closely. sometimes the only way to learn what i dont know is to be bold and see what the response is. Something tells me that the editors working at the pixar articles are going to close the gap on those 2 articles fairly soon.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:59, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nepal

Nepal , nation of Mount Everest and Gautama Buddha

4 articles

Nepal

Greater Nepal

Kingdom of Nepal

Contributor(s): AmRit GhiMire

Nepal is a nation full of natural, geographical,cultural diversity. --AmRit GhiMire 'Ranjit' (talk) 12:07, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fails to satisfy WP:WIAFT criteria: None of the articles are even at GA, let alone FA status.--十八 20:57, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Baseball's Sad Lexicon

Baseball's Sad Lexicon

4 articles

Frank Chance

Johnny Evers

Joe Tinker

Contributor(s): Muboshgu

Baseball's Sad Lexicon was a 1912 poem that immortalized the double play combination of "Tinker-to-Evers-to-Chance". All three were inducted into the National Baseball Hall of Fame. --– Muboshgu (talk) 00:18, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't know. You've proposed a GT on the poem, so I sort of lean oppose without Franklin Pierce Adams (the poem's author) being included. Courcelles 19:16, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm, I hadn't thought about it like that. I was actually proposing it on the "Tinker-to-Evers-to-Chance" grouping who were popularized with the poem, and admittedly gave no thought to improving FPA. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:24, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment A similar question was brought up at WP:FTQ#Four Freedoms (Norman Rockwell) where I, PresN (talk · contribs) and Nergaal (talk · contribs) all agreed that the artist (in that case Norman Rockwell) did not have to be included.--十八 01:52, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - But the difference there is that you had an article on the series of paintings and then the four actual paintings. This isn't quite such a natural grouping, despite the famous line, as the three players' articles are largely independent of the poem. This isn't "parts of artistic work", this is "people closely associated with artistic work", which, IMO, needs to include the author -- or a new article created on the "Tinker-to-Evers-to-Chance" combination more directly. I suspect this is one where opinions are going to vary widely, though. Courcelles 02:51, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - I think actually this fits that Norman Rockwell example well. Many of the citations involved in the articles suggest that it was this poem that made these three teammates more famous and have a greater legacy than they would've had without the poem. That was where I was coming from with this GT nom. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:39, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think that if the author were to be included, then the topic would have to be on his own work. I believe such a topic could exist where this one would be a subtopic. Nergaal (talk) 09:09, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate Comment It has now been a month since the nomination was opened with no supports or opposes. If the nomination remains much longer without any activity or discussion, it may have to be closed as no consensus to promote. @Courcelles:, @Nergaal: Would you like to add any further comments? --十八 05:37, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The artist shouldn't normally be included, but in this case is the author famous for anything else? Nergaal (talk) 11:17, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Franklin Pierce Adams was a notable newspaper columnist, but I don't believe he had any other works reach the level of this poem. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:46, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - In that case it is a bit tricky. In principle, if this topic could be included within an overview topic of the author, then everything would be fine. But if the guy is really not known for anything else, I think most people would be happy to have him included here instead. Nergaal (talk) 09:12, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support as-is without the author. We have the poem, which is the subject of the topic, and the three people about whom the poem was written. That's a neat little group by itself and isn't missing anything, per WP:FT? ("a well-defined topical scope"). Sure, we could have the author; we could have the New York Evening Mail or the Chicago Cubs too. But we don't need them in order to have a "a well-defined topical scope". By way of further example, when we have a GT on an album, we want the album and the songs to be at GA status - we don't say that the band/the artist has to be at GA status too, because that's not part of the topic. Bencherlite ^Talk 20:32, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's been over a month since someone made a comment on his nomination. While there isn't any opposition to result in it getting closed, the lack of conversation is troubling. GamerPro64 23:48, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am fine with passing this topic but I hope the author would at least consider adding the author into the topic in the future. Nergaal (talk) 09:42, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm gonna consider Nergaal's comment as a Weak Support as he wants the author of the poem to be considered for the topic. As such, I'm requesting some input from @Muboshgu: to hear further thoughts on the situation. Because adding the author to the topic in the future means that the topic is incomplete so we have to take care of this now. GamerPro64 00:27, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I could try to work on FPA's article, but I can't promise to do it in the near future. I've become a lot busier at work, and haven't done much GA work in a few months. – Muboshgu (talk) 11:47, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This topic certainly has been up for a while. Since there is no clear consensus on the topic as a whole, whether to add Franklin Pierce Adams or not, as well as said article not being a Good Article anyway to be part of the topic, I'm going to have this Closed with no consensus to promote. The nominator can nominate this topic again in the future. - GamerPro64 13:22, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is absolutely fair, and I appreciate all of the feedback. When time permits, I'll take a look at the FPA article and consider if I want to take it on or not. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:19, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Para-skiing classification

Para-alpine skiing classification

Para-Nordic skiing classification

15 articles

LW1

LW2

LW3

LW4

LW9

B1

B2

B3

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) 22:22, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seems complete but I am wondering how come you haven't focused on a topic covering all the winter Paralympic sports? Nergaal (talk) 11:01, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- These are the only winter sports for which separate articles were created for the classifications. So the idea was that this would form a subtopic of a larger one covering all the ~~winter~~ disability sports. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:43, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Just of curiosity, which one would be missing to have a complete topic? Nergaal (talk) 09:01, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Looking at the Winter Sports section in the ribbon, there would only be Para-snowboarding classification, Sledge hockey classification, Sledge racing classification and Wheelchair curling classification. Plus a lead article. At the moment everything follows the template:Para-skiing classifications and template:Disability sports classification ribbons, and there is no intention of creating a separate topic for Winter disability sports classification. The idea is to create one on Disability Sports Classification. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:21, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then I would prefer a lead article along the lines of Disability winter sport classification. Nergaal (talk) 12:15, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Close without consensus to promote to Good Topic. Due to lack of activity and no further discussion over the past month, this nomination will be closed. However, you can re-nominate the topic at any time.--十八 19:41, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jimi Hendrix

4 articles

Death of Jimi Hendrix

Canadian drug charges and trial of Jimi Hendrix

Are You Experienced

Contributor(s): GabeMc

All three articles are featured. --GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:24, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I do not believe this topic is complete as is. Surely a topic on Jimi Hendrix would have to at least include Jimi Hendrix discography and Jimi Hendrix posthumous discography, as well as The Jimi Hendrix Experience.--十八 21:52, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware that the criteria for a featured topic required completeness. You could argue that this topic would not be complete without each of his albums as well. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:54, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, the albums would be part of a subtopic on his discography covered by the two discography listed by Juhachi. Essentially, all the notable articles in the template listed at the bottom of the main article has to fall either within the main topic, or one of the subtopics led by one containing element of the topic. Also, Canadian drug charges and trial of Jimi Hendrix might be necessary. Nergaal (talk) 22:03, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FT? criteria 1(d) states: "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." And there is at least one precedence of only including a discography: Wikipedia:Featured topics/Overview of Chrisye. Similarly, this topic would end up as an overview of Jimi Hendrix.--十八 22:08, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are several hundred articles in that template; are you saying that there cannot be a featured topic on Jimi Hendrix that editors add to as more articles are brought up to par, but that a featured topic would require an initial batch of several hundred articles? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:10, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nergaal was basically referring to a rule-of-thumb where any article in a FT/GT would also be included in a navbox on each of the articles in the topic (criteria 1(c)). That does not mean every article in {{Jimi Hendrix}} must be in the topic, just that the articles that you'd expect in a topic on Jimi Hendrix should be included, like his discographies. Would you have a topic on Shakespeare without including Shakespeare bibliography? I think not.--十八 22:19, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I see what you mean, but technically speaking those articles pertain to not just him, but his bandmates as well. Every Wikipedia article that is dedicated to Hendrix and not also his bands are FA. That was my logic, since the three articles that pertain only to him are FA. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:23, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, all three articles on Jimi Hendrix's life are there... but you can't separate his life from his work, since that's what made him notable. The JHE and discography articles are thus necessary to talk about Hendrix. igordebraga ≠ 02:07, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate Comment - Just to help with the conversation, I'm gonna call Faryl Smith into place in terms of topics involving a single musician. GamerPro64 02:17, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Again, including only Are You Experienced is still cherry-picking - while including that, Axis: Bold as Love and Electric Ladyland has some basis as those are the studio albums he released alive, the overview provided by the discography (as well as the posthumous one) would be a better pick. Both are in good shape, with a little work they could get to Featured List status. igordebraga ≠ 13:54, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm not trying to cherry-pick, but I'm new to this page so I'm unaware of the expectations. I only added AYE because its now an FA, whereas the other studio albums are not. Can you tell me in a more concrete way which additional articles would be required for a Jimi Hendrix FT? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:07, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please read over WP:WIAFT, specifically the criterion I already quoted above: criteria 1(d) states: "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." You cannot simply add in one of the studio albums and expect not to add in the others. If you want this topic to pass, it needs to have Jimi Hendrix, Death of Jimi Hendrix, Canadian drug charges and trial of Jimi Hendrix, Jimi Hendrix discography, Jimi Hendrix posthumous discography and The Jimi Hendrix Experience. To put it another way, if you include one individual album, expect to include all of them. Instead, it would be much simpler to included the discography articles, and the band that has his name (and whose releases are included in the discographies).--十八 20:53, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just go ahead and close this nom. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:17, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Closing with no consensus to promote --十八 20:59, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2002 North Indian Ocean cyclone season

3 articles

Oman cyclone

West Bengal cyclone

Contributor(s): 12george1, Hurricanehink

After a bit of work, I am finally ready to introduce to you the first GTC from the North Indian Ocean basin; basically it is anywhere in the Indian Ocean north of the Equator. This GTC contains of three good articles, two of which passed in the last 7 months and the other was restored not too long ago to reflect more recent GA standards. If you were gonna ask if other storms need an article, the answer to that question is no. Anyway, hope you enjoy this collection of articles! --12george1 (talk) 19:40, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There are dead links in 2002 North Indian Ocean cyclone season and Oman cyclone. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 04:37, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the links that you tagged.--12george1 (talk) 05:08, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support, though I will be doing a copy edit of the 2002 Oman cyclone shortly (to ensure its GA status). TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 21:45, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support All looks good :) — ΛΧΣ²¹ ^{Call me Hahc21} 16:59, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate Comment - Really would be nice to have a consensus before the end of the year. GamerPro64 03:04, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

After being asked to comment here by Hurricanehink I thought i would take a look over the articles before i support them.

Too start with i spotted that "Cyclone 02B co-existed in a pair, with the southern counterpart being Tropical Cyclone Errol, which was in the South Indian Ocean within Tropical Cyclone Warning Centre (TCWC) Jakarta's area of responsibility." - Except it wasn't since the Indonesian Met was not a TCWC until 2007-08.

Fixed by Hurricanehink--12george1 (talk) 06:26, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I also noticed that you dont use the IMD journal report or the best track in any of the articles, which might help expand the details on the article. I also notice from the BT that the Depressions were was BoB 02.

Ok, will do. Actually, I'm not sure about your last sentence is trying to say.--12george1 (talk) 06:26, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dont worry i think its covered by my sentence below.Jason Rees (talk) 09:19, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you need to do some more research on the systems numbering - i dont know which is more reliable Gary Padgetts summaries or the IMD BT, but the IMD have labelled each system they monitored BOB or ARB XX within their BT.
The 2002 North Indian Ocean cyclone season was a below active season in terms of tropical cyclone formation - Add to the SS and source please, as im fairly sure that 4 CS is not below average.
Have a reliable source saying it's below-average. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:03, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- What is this relaible source and what is it saying? - My reliable source (The IMD) says 5.4 CSand 2.5 SCS is the average for a season. Which would place this season as average imo since we have to allow for some flexability on the numbers.Jason Rees (talk) 19:34, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ahh, there's the difference. This source includes depressions, not just cyclonic storms. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:27, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The season has no official bounds, but cyclones tend to form between April and December. - change to past tense and maybe add a line about the monsoon season.
- Changed to past tense, added monsoon bit. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:03, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
IFRC 2002 was the first season with no depressions during the monsoon season so it might be a good idea to do some research around this fact
- Thanks for that tidbit! I added it. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:03, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
With seven depressions and four cyclonic storms, this was one of the least active season in the ocean on record - i cant say im happy about the fact being presented here.
- It was removed. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:03, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How many TCFAs were issued for 02B?
- Just the one per the source, reworded. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:03, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have an objection to you using Typhoon 2000 and Australian Severe Weather as the publishers for the monthly stuff since it was a self publication.
- Removed. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:03, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
2002 Oman Cyclone is calling out for more research into its impact and aftermath - try digging around some government websites for this.
- I'm not sure what you're looking for, but I really can't find more information. Even though 2002 wasn't all that long ago, for whatever reason, there is little info on this storm, aside from historical notes that its landfall is fairly rare. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:22, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For any references to IBTRACS please make sure that you are using their full names and have the names in the same format.
- Done. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:03, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
On West Bengal - please check the BT and combine this sentence into one. "Around 0300 UTC on November 10, a depression developed in the southwestern Bay of Bengal.[1] Three hours later, a bulletin from the India Meteorological Department (IMD) indicated that BOB 01 formed about 265 km (165 mi) east-southeast of Chennai, India."

I think I did this.--12george1 (talk) 17:19, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Am confused to why you are using Gary Padgett for noting a systems peak intensity rather than the BT or the IMD stuff.
- FWIW, it's a little easier to read and understand than the BT. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:03, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
More later.Jason Rees (talk) 18:50, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Will there be anymore comments made and if not, were the issues addressed? GamerPro64 04:10, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I may make some more comments soon but at the moment i waiting for @12george1: to addresses the ones i have already made.Jason Rees (talk) 04:44, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, I was waiting for 12george1 as well, since he wrote the season article, but I went ahead and made some fixes. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:03, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This nomination has been up for over two months. Is Jason planning on adding more later or will he be able to decide on whether to Support or Oppose the nomination? GamerPro64 19:04, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you guys know, I am still planning on finish. The remaining issues seem to be with the BTs and the numbering of the TCs. Unfortunately, I do not have time to fix this right now. I am leaving soon and won't be home until about 8 hours later.--12george1 (talk) 17:19, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate Comment - Anything going on here still? We've reached 3 months since this nomination started. GamerPro64 02:02, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

With over three months open and the lack of supports or any new constructive comments for over a month, I am Closing this nomination with no consensus to promote. Another review can be opened anytime. Hopefully the next one can go by more smoothly. GamerPro64 17:54, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]