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]

Gillingham F.C.[edit]

Gillingham Football Club is a professional association football club based in Gillingham, England. The only Kent-based club in the English Football League, the team compete in League One, the third tier of the English football league system, and play their home matches at Priestfield Stadium. The club was founded in 1893 as New Brompton F.C., a name retained until 1912, and played in the Southern League before joining the Football League in 1920. After 18 unsuccessful seasons, Gillingham were voted out of the league at the end of the 1937–38 season, but returned to the Football League in 1950, when it was expanded to 92 clubs. Twice in the late 1980s Gillingham came close to winning promotion to the second tier of English football, but a decline then set in and in 1992–93 they narrowly avoided relegation to non-League football. Gillingham reached the second tier of English football in 2000 and remained there for five seasons. After a number of further relegations and promotions, the team have competed in League One since 2013.

9 articles
Featured article Gillingham F.C.
RainhamEndGordonRoadStand.jpg
Featured article History
Featured list Managers
Featured list Seasons
Featured list Players (50+ apps.)
Featured list Players (25-49 apps.)
Featured list Players (1-24 apps.)
Featured article Priestfield Stadium
Featured list Records and statistics
Contributor(s): ChrisTheDude

This was a FT in the past, but it was delisted because the lists of players with fewer than 50 appearances, which didn't exist when it was promoted, hadn't reached FL status. They have now, so here it is again...... --ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:36, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[]

  • Support: Yes, this appears to just be restoring a delisted topic by resolving the issues for which it was delisted. Good show! -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 22:46, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Support - Nothing seems to be missing. Great work getting this back to FTC! WA8MTWAYC (talk) 16:14, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Support Great work! KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 22:30, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[]


Hundred Years' War (1345–1347)[edit]

The Hundred Years' War broke out in 1337. There was a lull after the Truce of Espléchin was signed in 1340. The English determined early in 1345 to renew the war and full-scale fighting broke out in south-west and northern France. The French were repeatedly defeated, with the loss or devastation of much territory and the capture by the English of the port of Calais. Part of this period was so militarily successful for the English king that it was known as his annus mirabilis or year of marvels. Most fighting ceased in September 1347 when the Truce of Calais was signed.

13 articles
Good article Hundred Years' War (1345–1347)
Edward III (18th century).jpg
Featured article Gascon campaign of 1345 (subtopic)
Featured article Battle of Bergerac
Featured article Battle of Auberoche
Featured article Siege of Aiguillon
Featured article Lancaster's chevauchée of 1346
Featured article Crécy campaign (subtopic)
Featured article Battle of Caen (1346)
Featured article Battle of Blanchetaque
Featured article Battle of Crécy
Featured article Siege of Calais (1346–1347)
Featured article Battle of Neville's Cross
Good article Truce of Calais
Contributor(s): Gog the Mild

This covers all of the major campaigns, battles and sieges of the Hundred Years' War in the period 1345–1347. During the Edwardian phase of the war there would be periods of "hot" war, separated by periods when formal truces were in place and conflict was largely restricted to raiding and small-scale activities. Eg see the campaignbox. This topic covers all of the listed articles in the section "1345–1347". While the Battle of Neville's Cross is strictly a part of the Second War of Scottish Independence it is usually also considered to be a part of the Hundred Years' War - see the article text for details - and so I have included it. Note that this proposed topic includes two existing Featured Topics. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:35, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]

  • Support the topic as a whole, but I have reservations about the lead article's title—the year range looks like a disambiguator at first glance (as though this is the Hundred Years War that took place from 1345–1347). Has there been any thought to re titling it? The lead sentence of the article already has to parse the context as "English offensives in 1345–1347, during the Hundred Years' War", for example. Just a query really, as the topic seems complete given the scope and is almost entirely at Featured status. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ 16:50, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Good point. I have responded on the article's talk page. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:05, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Support per Grapple X. I've linked the two campaign subtopics; I'm not sure the battles in those subtopics need to be in this nomination, since they're covered by the campaign articles? -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 17:21, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
I was following the examples of existing FTs, such as Wikipedia:Featured topics/Battleships of Japan and Wikipedia:Featured topics/God of War franchise. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:31, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
The article in the subtopic don't need to be included so long as the subtopic is linked like it is currently. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ 17:35, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
I am not wholly convinced that Truce of Calais is necessary, but I can see how it could be argued that it is, and it sits there well enough, and so added. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:46, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Good topic nominations[edit]

808s & Heartbreak[edit]

808s & Heartbreak is the fourth studio album by Kanye West, released on November 24, 2008. West's new musical direction of using Auto-Tune did confuse some critics, though general assessments of the album and its singles were positive, later leading to numerous rankings and awards for West. The album brought West a large amount of commercial success, especially with the hits "Heartless" and "Love Lockdown".

12 articles
Good article 808s & Heartbreak
Kanye West 3.jpg
Good article "Say You Will"
Good article "Welcome to Heartbreak"
Good article "Heartless"
Good article "Amazing"
Good article "Love Lockdown"
Good article "Paranoid"
Good article "RoboCop"
Good article "Street Lights"
Good article "See You in My Nightmares"
Good article "Coldest Winter"
Good article Fame Kills: Starring Kanye West and Lady Gaga
Contributor(s): K. Peake, Bruce Campbell, IndianBio

I am submitting 808s & Heartbreak to become a good topic, following on from all of the detailed articles having rightfully earned GA-status. The album and its scheduled tour were promoted by users other than me many years ago, though I have made sure that these ones are still up to standard now and all of the songs were promotions of mine from 2019-21. All the articles have remained stable, as well as covered by reliable sources. --K. Peake 07:00, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[]


  • Support Rapreviews.com on "Coldest Winter" and "RoboCop" doesn't seem reliable at all. I do have some doubts regarding "Mind Equals Blown". On "RoboCop" the Overthinking It source, the people writing for it have degrees in something else but journalism, with one working as a janitor? On "Paranoid", the Soul in Stereo is a blog run by only one person, no one else. On "Welcome to Heartbreak" I have some doubts regarding the notability of the Antville Music Video Awards.On "Amazing" there are sources with publishers, others without, be consistent. In the same article, I'm 100% sure you can find a better source to replace rockonthenet. On the album article, "he Amajanes Blog" has to be removed. Aside from this, nice job on providing sources to show the notability of every song in the album, besides the album reviews.MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 09:05, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • See Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources for the verdict on RapReviews as generally reliable, see this review for my explanation of Mind Equals Blown in terms of reliability. Regarding Overthinking It, the about page shows that there are editorial, podcast and technical teams, as well as listing out a large number of staff. Many of these are qualified, such as experienced writers Matthew Wrather and Mark Lee, while the original article's author Ryan Sheely is a political scientist that studies numerous subjects, including applying social science to pop and hip hop records. Since the staff I discovered on the site seem to constitute reliability, I think you may have accidentally stumbled across one of the lower members and thought them to be representative of the majority. --K. Peake 06:10, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • I have more concerns and updated the previous ones. On top of that, "Mind Equals Blown (MEB) is the product of a group of friends coming together in a search for a deeper appreciation of music", doesn't strike me as notable, your explanation proves nothing as they selected certain pieces. I didn't stumble upon a lower member of the staff, but Matthew Wrather. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 09:05, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • I have now removed Mind Equals Blown and the info it was sourcing, replaced Soul in Stereo and the Antville Music Video Awards annually gives online awards to videos, so I don't see how it's not notable for a non-single like "Welcome to Heartbreak". Any excess publishers were removed from "Amazing" now and I've only kept the parameter where it should solely be used to cite publications, also I replaced both Rock on the Net and The Amajanes Blog. Overthinking It is still pending since I have got work today and it sources a lot of info, so I'll replace tomorrow probably. I have now deleted any usage of the publication from "RoboCop", either replacing it where other sources mentioned the info or removing the content altogether. --K. Peake 15:56, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Good job so far! I have strike almost everything, however, I still have some difficulty wrapping my hand around the Antville Music Video Awards. The site nowadays seems to be run by "kevathens", it used to have other people back in the day. People are asked to post music videos. Looks like a blog of music video fans who comment on that specter and vote for a video they like once a year. It is not an award show like the MTV Music Video Awards and others in the same vein. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 09:11, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • On further inspection, the website does not have any about or contact us page and appears very blog-like, so I have removed now. --K. Peake 08:21, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Support: Looks like the album, tour, and all notable tracks at GA, with some navbox connections and a shared supercategory (we're often flexible about these points with music album topics). I don't see anything missing. Good work! -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 12:20, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Support As the reviewer for quite a few of these articles I'm more than happy to offer my support. – zmbro (talk) 12:41, 7 October 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
Featured article Line 1 (Sound Transit) stations
Northbound Link train at Othello Station (31003193486).jpg
Good article Northgate
Good article Roosevelt
Good article U District
Featured article University of Washington
Good article Capitol Hill
Good article Westlake
Good article University Street
Good article Pioneer Square
Good article International District/Chinatown
Good article Stadium
Good article SODO
Good article Beacon Hill
Good article Mount Baker
Good article Columbia City
Good article Othello
Good article Rainier Beach
Featured article Tukwila International Boulevard
Good article SeaTac/Airport
Good article 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)[]

1909 Atlantic hurricane season[edit]

The 1909 Atlantic hurricane season was a destructive year with all but one of the 13 known tropical cyclones impacting land. Collectively, these storms killed at least 4,673 people and caused more than US$77.3 million in damage. Haiti, Mexico, and the United States were especially hard-hit, each seeing hundreds to thousands of fatalities. In July, a Category 3 hurricane struck Texas, killing 41 people. Another major hurricane in August inflicted catastrophic damage in and around Monterrey, Mexico, and was one of the deadliest on record in the Atlantic hurricane basin, killing an estimated 4,000 people in the country. The season's third major hurricane struck Cuba and Louisiana in September, killing an estimated 400 people. In October, the year's final major hurricane caused significant damage in western Cuba and southern Florida. The season ended with a Category 2 hurricane that produced prolific rainfall across the Greater Antilles, killing at least 198 people.

6 articles
Good article 1909 Atlantic hurricane season
BayStLouis1909Hurricane6photos.JPG
Good article Velasco hurricane
Good article Monterrey hurricane
Good article Grand Isle hurricane
Good article Florida Keys hurricane
Good article Greater Antilles hurricane
Contributor(s): Cyclonebiskit, 12george1, TheAustinMan

This destructive early 20th century season has been ready for nominating for a few years, with all of the articles being up to par. This was a collective effort between 12george1, TheAustinMan, and myself. --~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 20:06, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[]

  • Support: Looks like all the notable hurricanes and the season article at GA, with a navbox (which I cleaned up to include all the links) and category. Great work! -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 20:24, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[]


Next Nine[edit]

NASA Astronaut Group 2, also known as the "Next Nine" and the "New Nine", was the second group of astronauts selected by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). Chosen in 1962 to augment the Mercury Seven, these astronauts were meant to fly the two-man Gemini spacecraft and three-man Apollo spacecraft then under development. The nine astronauts were Neil Armstrong, Frank Borman, Pete Conrad, Jim Lovell, James McDivitt, Elliot See, Tom Stafford, Ed White and John Young. Six of the nine flew to the Moon (Lovell and Young twice), and Armstrong, Conrad and Young walked on it as well. Seven of the nine were awarded the Congressional Space Medal of Honor.

10 articles
Featured article NASA Astronaut Group 2
Astronaut Group 2 - S62-6759.jpg
Featured article Neil Armstrong
Featured article Frank Borman
Good article Pete Conrad
Good article Jim Lovell
Good article James McDivitt
Good article Elliott See
Good article Tom Stafford
Good article Ed White
Featured article John Young
Contributor(s): Hawkeye7, Kees08, Balon Greyjoy

After the Mercury Seven comes the Next Nine. Six of them were awarded the NASA Medal of Honor, five travelled to the Moon (two of the twice!) and three walked on it, including Neil Armstrong, the first man to do so. --Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:08, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[]

  • Comments Support: There's precedent for titling a GT/FT differently than the main article, but that's when the scope of the topic isn't quite the same as the subject of the lead article, and it looks to me like here they're the same. "Next Nine" is certainly catchier than "NASA Astronaut Group 2", but, since the article's title presumably reflects the community's judgment about the primary title associated with this subject, maybe the GT should reflect that fact? I've added a summary paragraph to the proposal, as the rules now require; others should feel free to edit and improve my draft! The articles all seem to be at quality, and they're linked by a navbox, though not exactly by any clear category; probably one should be created, along the lines of Category:Mercury Seven. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 13:08, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[]
My concerns have been addressed; changing to support. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 20:18, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Support on article quality but I do share the concerns about the topic title; "Next Nine" is catchy and does automatically denote the idea of a series of entries, but I'm not sure that it should take precedence over the article's title. Other than that this is tremendous work, clear in scope and complete. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ 14:33, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    It was never my intention to rename the article; it was just my own working title for the topic. I'm perfectly happy with for the topic to be named NASA Astronaut Group 2. I have created a Category:NASA Astronaut Group 2 along the lines of the Mercury Seven's one; there is a corresponding category on Commons. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:02, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[]


UEFA European Championship finals[edit]

The UEFA European Championship is a quadrennial association football competition contested since 1960 by the men's national teams of the member countries of UEFA, the sport's European governing body. The European Championship final is the last match of the competition, played by the only two teams remaining in contention, and the result determines which country is declared the European champion. It is a one-off match decided in regulation time; in case of a tie, extra time is used, followed if needed by a penalty shoot-out under the current rules. Until 1972, finals still level after extra time would be replayed, as was the case with the 1968 final. The golden goal rule applied during extra time in 1996 and 2000, while the similar silver goal rule would have applied in 2004 but was not put in practice. The winners are awarded a replica of the trophy (pictured) (the original remains with UEFA), while the losing finalists and semi-finalists are presented with a plaque. Gold and silver medals are awarded to the players of the winning and losing finalists respectively.

17 articles
Featured list UEFA European Championship finals
Coupe Henri Delaunay 2017.jpg
Good article 1960 European Nations' Cup Final
Featured article 1964 European Nations' Cup Final
Good article UEFA Euro 1968 Final
Good article UEFA Euro 1972 Final
Featured article UEFA Euro 1976 Final
Good article UEFA Euro 1980 Final
Good article UEFA Euro 1984 Final
Good article UEFA Euro 1988 Final
Good article UEFA Euro 1992 Final
Good article UEFA Euro 1996 Final
Good article UEFA Euro 2000 Final
Featured article UEFA Euro 2004 Final
Featured article UEFA Euro 2008 Final
Good article UEFA Euro 2012 Final
Good article UEFA Euro 2016 Final
Good article UEFA Euro 2020 Final
Contributor(s): The Rambling Man, Amakuru

Comprehensive list of either good or featured articles about every final match in the European Championship since its inception in 1960. Oh, and of course, thank you to all those editors who have helped get things shipshape and reviewed at GAN/FAC/FLC, your assistance has been invaluable. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 15:44, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]

  • Support. Everything's here and it'll be another few years before this needs updating. The aul lad still hasn't climbed down off the ceiling after Chiellini's entirely above-board and professional tactical display in the last one. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ 15:41, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Support Gog the Mild (talk) 20:05, 23 September 2021 (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
Good article 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)[]
  • 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)[]


Mercenary War[edit]

The Mercenary War, also known as the Truceless War, was a mutiny by troops who were employed by Carthage at the end of the First Punic War (264–241 BC), supported by uprisings of African settlements revolting against Carthaginian control. It lasted from 241 to 237 BC and after the rebels tortured 700 Carthaginian prisoners to death was pursued with great brutality on both sides. It ended with Carthage suppressing both the mutiny and the revolt. Rome opportunistically seized Sardinia and Corsica, which was the single greatest cause of war with Carthage breaking out again in 218 BC in the Second Punic War.

7 articles
Featured article Mercenary War
Poirson10 (cropped).gif
Contributor(s): Gog the Mild

This covers all of the major battles of the Mercenary War, also known as the Truceless War, and matches the content of the Mercenary War navbox. The final battle was missing from the navbox, so I created it and took it to GA. --Gog the Mild (talk) 16:52, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[]

  • Support: All the major battles in the category at GA or better, all linked by a navbox and category. Looks like thorough coverage of the war! Great work to all involved! -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 21:04, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Support. Criteria all appear to be met. Certainly an interesting area of work too, well done. Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ˣ 10:05, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Support nicely done Eddie891 Talk Work 17:12, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Support - Hog Farm Talk 15:23, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Support. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 06:32, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Support interesting topic and the articles delve into strong detail, with coverage from highly reliable sources! --K. Peake 11:03, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Topic removal candidates[edit]

Islands of Scotland[edit]

16 articles
Featured list Islands of Scotland
Boreray and the Stacs.jpg
Good article Northern Isles
Good article Shetland
Featured list List of islands
Good article Orkney
Featured list List of islands
Good article Hebrides
Good article Outer Hebrides
Featured list List of islands
Good article Inner Hebrides
Featured list List of islands
Good article Islands of the Clyde
Good article Islands of the Forth
Featured list Outlying islands
Demoted article St Kilda
Featured list Freshwater Islands

St Kilda, Scotland was demoted on 26 June 2021, there is no effort to change that, and without it the topic fails criterion 3.b. Armbrust The Homunculus 15:16, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[]

  • Comment: It looks to me as though the St. Kilda archipelago is within the scope of List of outlying islands of Scotland, and so should probably never have been part of this topic proposal in the first place. Maybe it can be done without? -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 17:26, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Millennium Park[edit]

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

1899 Kentucky gubernatorial election[edit]

6 articles
Featured article 1899 Kentucky gubernatorial election
Seal of Kentucky.svg
Demoted article William Goebel
Featured article J. C. W. Beckham
Good article William S. Taylor
Featured article John Y. Brown
Good article Taylor v. Beckham

William Goebel was demoted on 26 June 2021, there is no effort to change that, and without it the topic fails criterion 3.b. Armbrust The Homunculus 15:03, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[]

  • Remove: the topic is definitely incomplete without one of the two main candidates. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 17:20, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Comment@Armbrust and Bryanrutherford0: I have attempted to resolve the issues for William Goebel was delisted as FA, and this article is currently a Good Article Nominee. For the time being till someone takes it for review, can this removal candidacy be placed on hold? Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:56, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Sure, if you've got it at GAN, then we'll wait to see the outcome of that process. Good luck! -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 14:14, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Phedina[edit]

3 articles
Good article Phedina
Phedina borbonica 1894.jpg
Featured article Brazza's martin
Featured article Mascarene martin

The main article, Phedina, has been turned into a redirect to one of the included articles. This leaves just two articles (1a) and no lead article (2). CMD (talk) 14:58, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[]

  • Remove: With Brazza's Martin removed from the genus, this topic no longer exists, unfortunately. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 14:30, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Remove, per Bryan. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:36, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Remove, per Bryan. AryKun (talk) 07:45, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Remove, per Bryan. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 21:34, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Remove. I had a poke around the subject—bearing in mind the only birds I'd recognise are on a menu—to see if there would be some other way to restructure these featured articles in a topic that could conceivably be salvaged within a realistic time frame, but it seems no grouping that would include both wouldn't also include a substantial number of other, non eligible, articles too, unfortunately. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ X 12:42, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[]

John Morrison and the Miz[edit]

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

Good article John Morrison

Good article Mike Mizanin

Delisted good article 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)[]

Inside No. 9[edit]

13 articles
Good article Inside No. 9
Featured article "Sardines"
Featured article "Last Gasp"
Good article "La Couchette"
Good article "Cold Comfort"
Featured article "A Quiet Night In"
Good article "The Understudy"
Good article "The 12 Days of Christine"
Good article "Nana's Party"
Good article "Tom & Gerri"
Good article "The Harrowing"
Good article "The Trial of Elizabeth Gadge"
Good article "Séance Time"

Inside No. 9 has now run for six series; this GT listed the first two series, and the third are actually all GAs/FAs, but there's little-to-no progress for episodes in the next three series (which I believe are all notable). (So that's a 1(d) issue.) Long past any retention period, regrettably (series 4 aired in 2018). Minimum way to get this back to GT could be to create list articles for each series, get them to FL, and then make three topics for the first three series. — Bilorv (talk) 15:46, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[]

  • Remove: Nowhere near complete, as the nom makes clear. Tough to keep topics on ongoing subjects up to date! -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 16:57, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Comment: I agree that this can't be a featured or good topic any more as there are no articles on many of the recent episodes -- I always meant to get to them, but never did! I wonder whether we could not just have three separate topics for series 1-3? Would there need to be "list of episode" articles for each series (i.e., could the main IN9 article not work as the lead article required by the topic criteria?) It seems odd to have to create those lists purely for the purpose of having the topic. Josh Milburn (talk) 13:27, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[]
    • My understanding is that if you have the main article as Inside No. 9 then the topic must be the whole show (criterion 1(d)) and so you need every episode, and if you have the topic as "Inside No. 9 series 1" then you need a main article/list that's just about the first series (criterion 2). Maybe someone else can say more definitively whether this is right or point to examples of it being done differently. — Bilorv (talk) 13:53, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[]
    • Yes sadly for this current topic of with the main article as "Inside No. 9" you need all episodes. Alternatively, you could have possibly "Overview of Inside No. 9" with List of Episodes and Awards and nominations, (plus list of characters if it exists) though that does not seem to possible in this case since from the looks of it the awards table is not long enough to justify a split and there is not list of episodes either since it already fits in the main article. This can somewhat be difficult to do with British shows since they on average have fewer episodes per series meanining less likely for an separate award list and separate list of episodes (Example topic). Bilorv's idea of splitting the topic into different series like series 1, series 2, could work assuming a separate article could be made for each series, though can be tricky to do if there are only 6 episodes in a series (Example topic).  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 14:18, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Remove Sadly no longer meets 1.d. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 14:18, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Remove: per Bryan's comment. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 19:43, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Remove. Incomplete as it stands, and as an ongoing programme this is likely to recur even if the extant episodes are all brought up to par. However, I would not be opposed to breaking this up into seasons without the need for separate season articles; the nature of British television "seasons" feels much less conducive to separate articles, and I would personally have no issue with reusing the Inside No. 9 article as the lead, piped appropriately to earmark each topic as "Series One", etc. Others may disagree but then again that's why we have promotion candidacies and not an automatic process. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ X 13:02, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[]