Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/Failed log/2016

Manhattan Project[edit]

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]

Or just three. Per Wikipedia:Featured topic criteria:

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]
- The articles were not cherry picked. They are what is in the NavBox, which are by consensus the most important articles. Only four were GA or FA before I started, and I had to rescue one of the FAs from FARC. Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:19, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I just want to pipe in and say what incredible work has been done on these articles. It is an amazing amount of effort to bring these articles up to such high standard. I do agree with the previous comment, it seem some of the articles from Category:Manhattan Project seem to be left out arbitrarily. Maybe this can be renominated in the future? There are not that many missing pages. Again great work! Mattximus (talk) 03:58, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Having read over the navigation box, it does seem like nearly everything important is included on this list. I did find S-1 Uranium Committee to not be included, but it seems very important as the precursor to the Manhattan Project? As an aside that science fiction story doesn't belong in that nav box. Mattximus (talk) 03:18, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The science fiction story isn't in the NavBox (Template:Manhattan Project). I will upgrade the S-1 Uranium Committee article. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:19, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Article has been cleaned up and is now at GA. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:04, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the topic follows the navigation box, which was determined by consensus as the most important articles. Let's have a look at them. Articles in bold are in the set:

Extended content

- Manhattan Project -- main article
  509th Composite Group
  Bockscar
  
  Enola Gay
  
  The Great Artiste
  
  Up An' Atom -- Not very important Silverplate B-29
  
  Project Alberta
  
  Alsos Mission
  
  Ames Project
  Ames process -- covered by Ames Project article
  
  British contribution to the Manhattan Project
  M. S. Factory, Valley -- not mentioned in any Manhattan Project article
  
  MAUD Committee -- covered by British contribution
  
  Quebec Agreement -- covered by British contribution
  
  Calutron
  S-50 (Manhattan Project)
  
  Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory -- Mostly post-war related; wartime work covered by Calutron article
  
  Clinton Engineer Works
  Oak Ridge National Laboratory -- Mostly post-war related; wartime work covered by Clinton Engineer Works article
  
  Oak Ridge, Tennessee -- Mostly post-war related; wartime work covered by Clinton Engineer Works article
  
  Happy Valley, Oak Ridge, Tennessee -- covered by Clinton Engineer Works article
  
  S-50 (Manhattan Project)
  
  X-10 Graphite Reactor
  
  Y-12 National Security Complex -- Mostly post-war related; wartime work covered by Calutron article
  
  Dayton Project
  
  Einstein–Szilárd letter
  
  Fat Man
  
  Hanford Site
  Richland, Washington - Mostly post-war related; wartime work covered by Hanford site article
  
  B Reactor -- one of three reactors at Hanford
  
  Interim Committee
  
  K-25
  Kellex Corporation -- covered by K-25 article
  
  Little Boy
  
  Metallurgical Laboratory
  Chicago Pile-1
  
  Chicago Pile-3 -- covered by Metallurgical Laboratory article
  
  Franck Report
  
  Red Gate Woods -- covered by Metallurgical Laboratory article
  
  Site A/Plot M Disposal Site -- covered by Metallurgical Laboratory article
  
  Szilárd petition
  
  Montreal Laboratory
  
  Office of Scientific Research and Development
  
  Oppenheimer security hearing
  
  Pumpkin bomb
  
  P-9 Project
  Alabama Army Ammunition Plant
  
  Lake Ontario Ordnance Works
  
  Operation Peppermint
  
  Plutonium
  
  Project Y
  History of the Teller–Ulam design -- Mostly post-war related; wartime work covered by Project Y article
  
  Los Alamos National Laboratory -- Mostly post-war related; wartime work covered by Project Y article
  
  Los Alamos Primer -- covered by Project Y article
  
  Los Alamos Ranch School relevant parts covered by Project Y article
  
  Los Alamos, New Mexico
  
  Project Alberta
  
  Trinity (nuclear test)
  McDonald Ranch House covered by Trinity article (although it is GA)
  
  Trinitite
  
  RaLa Experiment
  
  Special Engineer Detachment -- covered by Project Y article
  
  Project Camel
  216th Army Air Forces Base Unit
  
  S-1 Uranium Committee
  
  Silverplate
  
  Smyth Report
  
  Stone & Webster
  
  Thin Man (nuclear bomb)
  
  Timeline of the Manhattan Project
  
  Tower 270
  
  Uranium
  Cold Water Creek -- trivia not mentioned in any Manhattan Project article
  
  Uravan, Colorado
  
  Union Minière du Haut Katanga -- Covered by main article
  
  Shinkolobwe
  
  Wendover Air Force Base
  
  Westinghouse Lamp Plant
- Deadline (science fiction story) -- trivia not mentioned in any Manhattan Project article

The category is unimportant and can be ignored. The set follows the NavBox. So, which article do you think warrants inclusion, and which one should be removed? Note that there is no possibility of some of them ever being brought to GA standard. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:01, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Let me try this again. The current proposed topic is very cluncky to say the least. EVEN if it was 100% the correct form, say somebody opens the topic, what do they see? A bunch of names together. The only large topic that comes into my mind is some German ship topic where 90 articles are obviously name of the ships. In this list, there is a ton of stuff that you have no idea what they are, and maybe the only way to find out is to actually read the entire article. The point of the topic is to quickly introduce a reader to the topic with a menu, not to give him a soup to begin with. That is why, an overview topic should have a few sensible subtopics (i.e. People involved in MP, Timeline of MP, Locations of MP, etc) plus a few obvious ones like Fat Man, maybe Oppenhauer, etc. Even the template presented right above my reply is more clear that the proposed topic, and it kinda alludes that there are some gaps in the topic. Please try again to reorganize the topic and come up with some bare-bone ideas for article names and then let's start the discussion from there.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nergaal (talk • contribs) 21:15, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

With discussion that has seemed to have stalled for the past month or so, and already with with two opposes with valid concerns about the topic's scope, I am closing this nomination with no consensus to promote. Feel free to re-nominate when the issues have been addressed.--十八 22:19, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Culinary Institute of America[edit]

The Culinary Institute of America

3 articles

The Culinary Institute of America at Greystone

Copia

Contributor(s): Ɱ

This topic only includes Good Articles related to the CIA, all recently reviewed for GA criteria. This is my second Good Topic nomination, after Briarcliff Manor. ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 17:18, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Copia is essentially not mentioned in the main article. Nergaal (talk) 19:55, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That might usually be a good point, however the only thing carrying over is the building, and therefore the information about Copia as a museum would be well out of scope in the main CIA article being that it's an undeveloped sub-subcampus of the institution.

Once Copia is opened as a new campus, there will be aspects of its operation that will be relevant to note in the main article. ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 21:20, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree, the Copia article almost seems like it falls outside the topic, a cursory connection at best. The fact that it might be relevant in the future is nice, but until it happens (may never happen) I don't see Copia as being part of the topic as such especiall in it's current form, which means it falls one short of the criteria. MPJ-DK 21:01, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@MPJ-DK: Except that the CIA has already purchased and started moving into the Copia building. They've already hosted quite a few events there.

ɱ

(talk) · vbm · coi) 21:10, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ɱ: - that seems to be the opposite as what you stated in April when the comment was that there was not a lot of commonality between the two CIA articles and Copia. It's either in and has more detail about the topic, or it's out - cannot have it both ways. MPJ-DK 20:46, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@MPJ-DK: In April I don't even think the sale of Copia was even finalized, and the school had a limited idea of what they were going to do with it. I updated the Copia article yesterday to include that it is purchased and is going to host the Food Business School and a museum. It's already hosting events; it's virtually as much a campus of the CIA as Greystone is now, so it would be ridiculous not to include it in the CIA topic.

ɱ

(talk) · vbm · coi) 20:59, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So let us not be ridiculous then, the Copia article has only a cursory mention about the CIA, general comments on future plans beyond hosting one event. It certainly does not express the fact that it is "virtually as much a campus as Greystone" from what I have read. MPJ-DK 22:58, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This nomination has been going on for over two months with people disagreeing with Copia's inclusion into the topic. As such, I will be closing this nomination with no consensus to promote. GamerPro64 16:12, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hong Kong[edit]

Hong Kong (Chinese: 香港; literally: "Fragrant Harbour"), officially Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China, is an autonomous territory on the southern coast of China at the Pearl River Estuary and the South China Sea. Hong Kong is known for its skyline and deep natural harbor. It has a land area of 1104 km² and shares its northern border with Guangdong Province of Mainland China. With around 7.2 million inhabitants of various nationalities, Hong Kong is one of the world's most densely populated metropolises.

Contributor(s): Wishva de Silva

I consider articles related to Hong Kong on the English Wikipedia are very good in coverage (their article qualities are also really high, probably among the bests of Asian cities on Wikipedia). These articles are maintained by WikiProject Hong Kong. --Wishva de Silva (talk) 04:48, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Does not satisfy criteria I am quick-failing this nomination because it does not satisfy WP:WIAFT criterion 1(d). There are plenty of articles related to Hong Kong which can be found on {{Hong Kong topics}} that are not GA or FA/FL which would need to be in a topic on Hong Kong for it to pass a FT/GT nomination.--十八 06:31, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]