Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates
|
Featured and good topics in Wikipedia   A featured topic (FT) is a collection of inter-related articles in which at least half are featured articles or featured lists. The remaining articles must be at least good quality. A good topic (GT) 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. Before nominating a topic, nominators may wish to receive feedback by listing it at the Featured and good topics talk page. 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 coordinators Aza24, MaranoFan and Kyle Peake 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 FGTC coordinators, please leave a message on the FGTC talk page, or use the {{@FGTC}} notification template elsewhere. You may want to check previous archived nominations first: |
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.
For a topic to be promoted to featured or good topic status, consensus must be reached that it meets the criteria. The FGTC coordinators are usually the ones to assess this consensus and close FGTC discussions. If there is a consensus to promote, the promote instructions are located here. 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]The history of the National Hockey League begins with the end of its predecessor league, the National Hockey Association (NHA), in 1917. After unsuccessfully attempting to resolve disputes with Eddie Livingstone, owner of the Toronto Blueshirts, executives of the three other NHA franchises suspended the NHA, and formed the National Hockey League (NHL), replacing the Livingstone team with a temporary team in Toronto, the Arenas. The NHL's first quarter-century saw the league compete against two rival major leagues—the Pacific Coast Hockey Association and Western Canada Hockey League—for players and the Stanley Cup. The NHL first expanded into the United States in 1924 with the founding of the Boston Bruins, and by 1926 consisted of ten teams in Ontario, Quebec, the Great Lakes region, and the Northeastern United States. At the same time, the NHL emerged as the only major league and the sole competitor for the Stanley Cup; in 1947, the NHL completed a deal with the Stanley Cup trustees to gain full control of the Cup. The NHL's footprint spread across Canada as Foster Hewitt's radio broadcasts were heard coast-to-coast starting in 1933.
- Contributor(s): CosXZ, Scorpion0422, Resolute, Maxim
Meets all of the criteria. --Cos (X + Z) 17:02, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: Perhaps the split discussion at Talk:History of the National Hockey League (1992–present)#Move to 1992–2017? that's been going on since February should be resolved first. There exists a draft at Draft:History of the National Hockey League (since 2017) which was worked on as recently as two days ago. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:02, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- It looks like there was support for a split and the draft is in good shape. Instead of being bold and moving the draft to main space myself, I've reached out to the draft creator here to see if they intend to move it to main space. They haven't edited in a few days, so we may need to be patient. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:25, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- I'm one of the other editors on that draft, I've been meaning to port over content from Arizona Coyotes and Utah NHL team to fill out the currently-empty last section but haven't gotten around to it. Once that's done, the draft should be good to publish. The Kip (contribs) 17:43, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- Fully expanded the aforementioned section, improved coverage of Tampa Bay's B2B and added a section on Boston's record-breaking season as well. Let me know if anything else is needed. The Kip (contribs) 06:37, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
- Just following up - @Hey man im josh, would I be good to move the draft to mainspace and perform the associated removals/page moves/template edits associated with doing so? Only issue is that 2017-present will then need to go through the GA process, which will hold up this FT nom. The Kip (contribs) 17:21, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- @The Kip: I don't see any reason why not. There did seem to be a general consensus in favor of the split and it's well written, so I say shoot. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:23, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Hey man im josh I've moved to mainspace and nominated it for GA in order to keep the ball rolling on this nom. I believe I've taken care of all the associated moves, edits, removals, etc - please let me know if I've missed anything. The Kip (contribs) 19:33, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- @The Kip: I don't see any reason why not. There did seem to be a general consensus in favor of the split and it's well written, so I say shoot. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:23, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- It looks like there was support for a split and the draft is in good shape. Instead of being bold and moving the draft to main space myself, I've reached out to the draft creator here to see if they intend to move it to main space. They haven't edited in a few days, so we may need to be patient. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:25, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- Hold – pending discussion and draft article status. Idiosincrático (talk) 03:15, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: Just pointing this out—in order to cover all the articles relating to the History of the NHL, we would need to add History of the National Hockey League on television, History of the National Hockey League on United States television, and History of organizational changes in the NHL to the topic. XR228 (talk) 19:44, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- I think the current list of articles is okay as they're the ones included in the NHL series template. By criteria 1.c, these articles are shared in a common template. There's probably an argument to make the series more sophisticated, but the articles you've mentioned could very well be compiled into other topics/series/templates. For example, the two television history articles could go under a National Hockey League on television lead with articles from the NHL on TV template. I just think the series template is clearly defined and this topic is a direct and complete representation of that, which is what we're after. Idiosincrático (talk) 14:59, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- I agree, the template and topic is clearly defined. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:22, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
- I think the current list of articles is okay as they're the ones included in the NHL series template. By criteria 1.c, these articles are shared in a common template. There's probably an argument to make the series more sophisticated, but the articles you've mentioned could very well be compiled into other topics/series/templates. For example, the two television history articles could go under a National Hockey League on television lead with articles from the NHL on TV template. I just think the series template is clearly defined and this topic is a direct and complete representation of that, which is what we're after. Idiosincrático (talk) 14:59, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- Hold since one of the articles is still getting reviewed. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 00:34, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
Good topic nominations
[edit]The Hypericum huber-morathii group is a subsection of five species in the genus Hypericum. Some of the species are endemic to Turkey, while others are found in the Caucasus and Libya. Rare perennial herbs, species in the huber-morathii group are found most often in the cracks of limestone rocks. Three of the plants in the group were excluded from early attempts to survey the genus Hypericum leading to contradictions around their taxonomic placement. As of 2013, they have been considered a part of section Adenosepalum.
Hypericum huber-morathii group
- Contributor(s): Fritzmann2002
Another topic in my Hypericum series, this one is a subsectional equivalent called the huber-morathii group, after one of the species it contains. That species article also covers the creation and composition of the group, and serves as an overview for the topic. --Fritzmann (message me) 03:27, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support – great stuff. Idiosincrático (talk) 04:06, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:25, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support Looks good to me! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 22:22, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
Fearless (Taylor's Version) by the American singer-songwriter Taylor Swift is a re-recording of her 2008 studio album Fearless. Released on April 9, 2021, it was the first of her re-recording projects following a 2019 dispute over the masters of her back catalog. Fearless (Taylor's Version) include re-recordings of the original Fearless tracks and five previously unreleased "From the Vault" tracks, and it became the first re-recorded album to top the US Billboard 200.
- Contributor(s): Ippantekina, PassedDown, Gained
This topic covers the re-recorded album Fearless (Taylor's Version) and its notable tracks, and all of the articles within scope are listed as GA. --Gained (talk) 11:50, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support – All songs covered. Idiosincrático (talk) 14:29, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support - looks good -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:28, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
The seventh series of the British science fiction television programme Doctor Who was originally broadcast on BBC One from December 25 2011 through 18 May 2013. The series was split in two halves the first featuring Amy Pond (Karen Gillian) and Rory Williams (Arthur Darvill), the second featuring Clara Oswald (Jenna Coleman).
- Contributor(s): Glimmer721, Alex 21, OlifanofmrTennant, Pokelego999
The first 11 episodes were gotten to GA back when they were airing by Glimmer721, the season article was improved to GA in 2020 by Alex 21. I got one of the episodes to GA myself and the other with Pokelego999. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 04:22, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support as nominator Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 16:07, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support – misc. sup. episodes not included as not apart of mainstream series. Idiosincrático (talk) 14:59, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support Although I didn't participate in this one myself, I've seen the progress as I've worked on several related articles. Everything seems complete and cohesive. TheDoctorWho (talk) 02:09, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
The 2023–24 College Football Playoff was a single-elimination postseason tournament that determined the national champion of the 2023 NCAA Division I FBS football season. It was the tenth edition of the College Football Playoff and involved the top four teams in the country as ranked by the College Football Playoff poll. The playoff consisted of two semifinal games, played at the Sugar Bowl and the Rose Bowl, with the winners of each advancing to the national championship game. Each participating team was the champion of its respective conference: No. 1 Michigan from the Big Ten Conference, No. 2 Washington from the Pac-12 Conference, No. 3 Texas from the Big 12 Conference, and No. 4 Alabama from the Southeastern Conference. Michigan and Washington won their respective semifinal games and Michigan won the national championship game, 34–13, to secure their first outright national championship since 1948.
I've been working on this on-and-off since the championship game in January and I'm very pleased to have all four articles now at GA status. This is a good topic nomination and my first GT/FT nomination. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 23:53, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- Noting that 2023 NCAA Division I FBS football rankings is also in Category:2023–24 College Football Playoff. Any thoughts on the 4 team season articles for the 4 teams involved in these games being included in the scope? Hey man im josh (talk) 01:17, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Hey man im josh I assume the ranking article is included in the category solely because the CFP rankings are listed there, since they don't have a separate article. As for the team season articles, I would argue against adding them because the playoff itself as an entity comprises just the games. While the teams, of course, do participate in the games, my instinct would be that the teams would not belong in this topic. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 02:26, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- I don't have a strong opinion either way, but I thought I'd ask to pick your brain on it a bit. I get your line of thinking and I do agree that technically it's a set if you're considering just the playoff structure. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:40, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Hey man im josh I assume the ranking article is included in the category solely because the CFP rankings are listed there, since they don't have a separate article. As for the team season articles, I would argue against adding them because the playoff itself as an entity comprises just the games. While the teams, of course, do participate in the games, my instinct would be that the teams would not belong in this topic. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 02:26, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- Support without ranking inclusion. The rankings in the category kinda throws it slightly out of whack. But it's clear that the articles listed only cover the play-off matches outlined in the template. Maybe you could make the topic more specific by titling it "2023–24 College Football Playoff games"? Idiosincrático (talk) 15:19, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
Topic removal candidates
[edit]Simpson family
[edit]
No longer meets criteria 3b due to the delisting of Maggie Simpson as a good article in July, and has only had content added once to reflect a very recent episode.
While not an immediate issue right now, Bart Simpson has been given a featured article review note; the article is currently vulnerable to eventual demotion, and the topic's WikiProject has fallen inactive, making it unlikely to be edited much before it is up for FAR. Xeroctic (talk) 10:10, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
- Remove – per nom. Idiosincrático (talk) 13:16, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
- Remove per nominator. Armbrust The Homunculus 09:43, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
Fails criterion 3.b as San Marino in the Eurovision Song Contest 2024 is not a WP:GA, isn't being worked on, and is past the three month grace period (the Eurovision Song Contest ended on 11 May). Armbrust The Homunculus 09:58, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
Remove – Idiosincrático (talk) 11:09, 11 October 2024 (UTC)- Wait – Pending 2024 GAN. Idiosincrático (talk) 04:00, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
- Comment. I admit that I missed the 3-month grace period, but as the edit history shows, it would be untrue to say that I'm not working on it. It's certainly clear that I'm focused on getting this next one nominated, considering the edits I've made in the last 2 weeks. Probably only a few days out in fact. Honestly, the 6+ month wait for GA reviews has really slowed any sense of urgency, and I had held off to not overwhelm the GA process and add to its crazy backlog. Grk1011 (talk) 16:29, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- You made 5 edits to that page in the last 5 months. I wouldn't call that "working on it". Armbrust The Homunculus 20:23, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- The edits were on the last 3 consecutive Saturdays, the only day I have time to do more than just housekeeping edits. Anyway, it's nominated now, so I finished it on a Friday, one day earlier than I anticipated. Thanks for the push! Grk1011 (talk) 20:39, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- You made 5 edits to that page in the last 5 months. I wouldn't call that "working on it". Armbrust The Homunculus 20:23, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- Hold until the GAN concludes. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:46, 16 October 2024 (UTC)