Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/Failed log/2019

Nashville Sounds[edit]

I am nominating this for featured topic because I believe it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work, especially in the area of Minor Leagues Baseball. All articles and lists are featured except List of Nashville Sounds no-hitters, which has too few items (it has been peer reviewed). NatureBoyMD (talk) 01:34, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Without Redbirds–Sounds rivalry and First Tennessee Field the topic is incomplete. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 20:41, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. While both articles pertain to the Sounds, they do not contribute to one’s overall understanding of the team. Redbirds–Sounds rivalry addresses their competition against one team. First Tennessee Field is about a failed attempt to secure a new ballpark that didn’t get past the planning stage. Much of the relevant info is covered in Herschel Greer Stadium and First Tennessee Park. NatureBoyMD (talk) 23:08, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First Tennessee Field has been merged with First Tennessee Park. NatureBoyMD (talk) 15:42, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I don't believe the rivalry article is integral to the topic -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:18, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This nomination has stalled for over a month. I am failing this nomination. I suggest making a fresh new nomination for new eyes to see. GamerPro64 02:03, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Final Fantasy V[edit]

Final Fantasy V is a medieval-fantasy role-playing video game developed and published by Square in 1992 as a part of the Final Fantasy series. The game first appeared only in Japan on Nintendo's Super Famicom (known internationally as the Super Nintendo Entertainment System). It has been ported with minor differences to Sony's PlayStation and Nintendo's Game Boy Advance. An original video animation produced in 1994 called Final Fantasy: Legend of the Crystals serves as a sequel to the events depicted in the game. It was released for the PlayStation Network on April 6, 2011, in Japan. An enhanced port of the game, with new high-resolution graphics and a touch-based interface, was released for iPhone and iPad on March 28, 2013, and for Android on September 25, 2013.

Final Fantasy V

articles

Music of Final Fantasy V

Faris Scherwiz

All articles under the topic are now GA, so I figured I would nominate it. Sorry if I made any errors, as this is my first attempt at nominating a series of articles like this. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 18:01, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - does Final Fantasy: Legend of the Crystals not seem like a likely fit for the topic, as it's a anime sequel? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:28, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

...

Oh spit. Yeah maybe! I forgot that existed truth be told. c_c So maybe just pass on this nomation for now and I'll work on that. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 16:07, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm presently trying to improve Legend of the Crystals to GA status, but finding it difficult due to my inexperience with anime, haha. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 20:01, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Going to close this nomination since its clear that this topic is incomplete. Once that OVA gets promoted to GA, this topic can be nominated again. GamerPro64 00:43, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Interstate 78 in New York[edit]

Interstate 78 (I-78) is a part of the Interstate Highway System that runs from Union Township, Lebanon County, Pennsylvania, to New York City. In the U.S. state of New York, I-78 extends 0.90 miles (1.45 km). The entirety of I-78 consists of the Holland Tunnel, which crosses under the Hudson River from New Jersey and ends at an exit rotary in Lower Manhattan.

Interstate 78 in New York

articles

Brooklyn–Battery Tunnel

Holland Tunnel

Interstate 278

Interstate 678

New York State Route 878

Contributor(s): Epicgenius, Tdorante10

I-78 and its derivative routes are all Good Articles. These child routes are I-278, I-678, I-478 (the Brooklyn-Battery Tunnel) and I-878 (New York State Route 878). In addition, Holland Tunnel (the only part of I-78 in New York that was actually built) is also a Good Article. This is similar to other road-related GT's and FT's such as Wikipedia:Featured topics/New York State Route 20N and Wikipedia:Featured topics/Interstate 96, in that it is limited to a highway within one state, and its respective child highways. --epicgenius (talk) 00:14, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant oppose—it would be better to nominate a topic with Interstate 78 as the parent, which would then include Interstate 78 in Pennsylvania and Interstate 78 in New Jersey plus any 3dIs from those states not represented above. Imzadi 1979 → 17:10, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Imzadi1979: I was thinking that could be another Good Topic altogether, with this topic as part of the I-78 main topic. The I-78, I-78 (PA) and I-78 (NJ) articles aren't good articles yet, so I don't think I can nominate these as part of Good Topics. However, Pennsylvania Route 378 is a good article so maybe these can be part of a I-78 Good Topic. epicgenius (talk) 18:59, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Epicgenius: I wouldn't do a NY-specific subtopic under an I-78 parent topic. I would only include all of the articles related to I-78 nationally in a single topic, which is what we have with I-96. Since the parent article and the other two state articles for I-78 are not GAs, that would mean that you cannot nominate such a topic until they are promoted. I have not looked to see if there are any other 3dI articles that would need inclusion, but if they aren't GAs or better, again, the topic could not be nominated yet until they are.
  In looking at this, if a state-specific Interstate Highway topic were a good idea, we'd have one already on Interstate 75 in Michigan (FA), and include the articles on I-275 (FA), I-375 (GA), I-475 (GA), I-675 (FA) and the business loops/spurs (GA). However, since I don't think that we consider this a valid topic without including the other states, such a topic has not been nominated. I-96 only exists in a single state, so it's national topic is also a Michigan-specific one. Imzadi 1979 → 19:55, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Imzadi1979: OK, that makes sense. I thought that I-96, being a single-state interstate, would be an applicable comparison, but I guess not. I still think that, with the complexity of I-78 in NY, it may still be a good idea to have this as a child topic, and a parent topic for I-78 as well once that is completed. There are a few other pieces of related infrastructure (e.g. Interstate 295 (New York)) that also relate to I-78 in NY, but not directly. However, I've never nominated a Good Topic before so I'll follow your advice.
    I think 278, 378, 478, 678, and 878 are the only 3di's with articles, and all are good articles. I-178 redirects to I-78 (PA), though, which is not a good article. epicgenius (talk) 20:03, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the single oppose to this topic's nomination, and how there has been no discussion since the day of its nomination, I am failing this nomination.--十八 01:00, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Marcus Aurelius[edit]

Marcus Aurelius

3 articles

Early life

Reign

Contributor(s): Векочел

This topic covers the life of Roman emperor Marcus Aurelius. He was also a politician and Stoic philosopher. Векочел (talk) 03:29, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There are the required three articles, and they're all at GA quality. I can't tell whether the topic seems complete; I could easily see an argument that it should also include the articles Roman–Parthian War of 161–166, Marcomannic Wars, and Antonine Plague (the major events of his reign), though perhaps the thinking is that they're just subtopics of Reign of Marcus Aurelius? I'm torn as to the proper scope of the topic. -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 16:48, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Bryanrutherford0, you do raise a good point. However, it’s really these three articles that focus on his life. Векочел (talk) 18:01, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- You can see an example of the biography featured topic on Wikipedia:Featured topics/Overview of Leonardo DiCaprio. Векочел (talk) 18:05, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- GamerPro64 I’m going to request that this nomination be withdrawn. It is almost certain that it would be failed. Векочел (talk) 18:22, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Per nominators request I am failing this nomination. GamerPro64 01:01, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2015 Pacific hurricane season[edit]

2015 Pacific hurricane season

7 articles

I am nominating this Pacific hurricane season for good topic as all the articles have risen to good article status. I briefly reviewed all the articles before nominating and they all look pretty good. In my opinion, this meets the criteria for good topic. Noah^Talk 22:55, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Typhoon Halola should be included in the topic, since it was a part of the Pacific Hurricane Season that year.Jason Rees (talk) 01:32, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I thought it was minuscule since it was in CPAC for 2.75 days and peaked as a TS without nearing land (nothing the season article didn't already cover in detail). The majority (12.25 days) of its existence was in WPAC where it had a C2 peak and made landfall in Japan. So I guess this nomination has failed per the GT criteria of no open GANs or work. Noah^Talk 02:00, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have done significant work on Typhoon Halola, but I don't think it can be nominated for GA since webcite has been down (cursed outages) and could be down for days. That has all the WPAC MH info. Noah^Talk 05:58, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Jason Rees is correct in that Typhoon Halola would have to be included for this nomination to be valid as one of the 7 storms that have their own article, so I am failing this nomination for now.--十八 07:05, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1999–2000 Arsenal F.C. season[edit]

1999–2000 Arsenal F.C. season

3 articles

1999 FA Charity Shield

2000 UEFA Cup Final

I believe this topic meets the criteria. All articles in this topic has actually been "Good Articles" for a while. There is also such an example: Wikipedia:Featured topics/2002–03 Arsenal F.C. season. Thanks in advance for your comments. Cheers. --►Cekli 829 17:20, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Seems to include all the notable matches they played in that year. -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 16:46, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - meets all criteria Spiderone 16:38, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - as main contributor to the articles. This was just a rough idea of a topic, as 2000 UEFA Cup Final overlaps with Arsenal F.C. in European football, I'd want to first get the European articles up to scratch and put it there. Lemonade51 (talk) 22:01, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As the main contributor of these articles pointed out that this topic in its current condition fails criterion 1d for Featured topics, I am failing this nomination. GamerPro64 01:22, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2004–05 Arsenal F.C. season[edit]

2004–05 Arsenal F.C. season

3 articles

2004 FA Community Shield

2005 FA Cup Final

I believe this topic meets the criteria. All articles in this topic has actually been "Good Articles" for a while. There is also such an example: Wikipedia:Featured topics/2002–03 Arsenal F.C. season. Thanks in advance for your comments. Cheers. --►Cekli 829 07:19, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Seems to cover all the notable matches they played in that year. -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 16:50, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - meets all criteria Spiderone 16:38, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - as main contributor, articles overlap with another topic, Arsenal F.C.–Manchester United F.C. rivalry. Topic was pinched from my sandbox and I'd have appreciated it if you notified me first before nominating, @Cekli829: Lemonade51 (talk) 22:09, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As the main contributor of these articles pointed out that this topic in its current condition fails criterion 1d for Featured topics, I am failing this nomination. GamerPro64 01:22, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

London station group[edit]

The London station group is a group of 18 railway stations served by the National Rail network in central London. Most are terminal stations, either serving major national services or local commuter routes. A small number are through-stations that are considered terminals for ticketing purposes. All current stations in the group fall within London fare zone 1. A ticket marked "London Terminals" allows travel to any station in the group via any permitted route, as determined by the National Routeing Guide.

Contributor(s): Ritchie333

The last time I put together a good topic for the List of London Monopoly locations, The Rambling Man said, "I want to see mainline stations of London next." Well, since he asked so nicely, who am I to refuse? So here is a list of all of them, together with a featured topic to tie them altogether. There are more London terminals than you think; some are well known such as King's Cross, some such as Old Street would make you think "that's a London terminus, really?" Still, they're all here for your perusal and comments. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:21, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your King's Cross is a dab... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:36, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support very funny... Good work! ►Cekli 829 17:34, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose London_station_group#Former_stations are also within the scope of the topic. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 20:59, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't sure about whether or not to include them, but I don't think it's immediately obvious that the criteria would mandate them given the lead in the list article talks about "18 stations". In any case, if people want to say "no, go and get Kensington Olympia and Kings X Thameslink to GA" then I'll see you in six months to a year. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:20, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support I think it's reasonable to have a complete topic of only extant stations. Reywas92^Talk 19:52, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Armbrust. - Brojam (talk)

I can't see any possible way of getting King's Cross Thameslink railway station to GA - ever (it's a borderline merge target), so we're screwed. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:01, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Due to there not being any consensus to promote this topic, and the nominator appears to have essentially withdrawn the nomination, I am failing this nomination. Feel free to nominate again if the issues discussed are addressed.--十八 21:31, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Juhachi: Can you recommend appropriate book sources to do so? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:03, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Apollo 11 Mission[edit]

4 articles

Contributor(s): DannyS712

Note that I am not a primary contributor, and I don't know who contributed the most. This is a good topic nomination. --DannyS712 (talk) 09:54, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria: 1. It is a set of similar, interrelated articles or lists that cover a specific topic.

(a) There are at least three distinct articles or lists.

there are 4

(b) The articles or lists have a clear similarity with each other under a well-defined topical scope.

they are related about the same mission to the moon

(c) All articles or lists in the topic are linked together, preferably using a template, and share a common category or super-category.

(d) 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.

picked the most important, core articles for the topic (main mission article + three astronauts on the mission)

(e) For overview topics, every article within the scope of the topic that is not included in the topic should also be within the scope of a non-lead article that is included in the topic.

not applicable

2. The topic has an introductory and summary lead article or list.

3. Each article or list is of high quality, including the referencing.

(b) With good topics only:

(i) All items are at least featured lists or good articles.

1 featured article, 3 good articles

(c) Items that are ineligible for featured article, featured list or good article status, either due to th:eir limited subject matter (in the case of lists only) or due to inherent instability (in the case of either articles or lists), must have passed an individual quality audit that included a completed peer review, with all important problems fixed. Such items do not count towards criteria 1(a), 3(a)(ii), or 3(b)(i).

Meets the requisite criteria to become a good topic. --DannyS712 (talk) 10:08, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think it definitely needs Mare Tranquillitatis, and maybe Apollo 11 missing tapes, Apollo 11 in popular culture, Apollo 11 lunar sample display, and Apollo 11 goodwill messages. Kees08 (Talk) 01:20, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Kees08: I wanted this to be about just the visit to the moon itself, not about the mission parameters or the effects back on earth. Is that not okay? --DannyS712 (talk) 01:32, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is okay if others think it is fine. I did not nominate the topic yet because I was planning to do at least the landing site. Since the other articles I listed are directly related to the mission, they seem appropriate to include as well. Kees08 (Talk) 02:18, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tranquility Base would be better than the Mare Tranquillitatis article, if this goes that route. Kees08 (Talk) 07:25, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with @Kees08: that the topic needs to have a broader scope of articles. I can understand not including all of the articles about the effects of Apollo 11, but it should at least include more pages about the mission itself, such as the missing tapes, Transquility Base, and the goodwill message. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 00:50, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose until other articles in the scope can be brought up to GA quality, as noted above. -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 15:18, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (for now) per the above. Until the other Apollo 11-related articles are up to GA/FA quality, it seems inappropriate to have a seemingly comprehensive featured topic (given the name) passed that is not inclusive of the other articles.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 02:16, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the consensus above from four separate editors that this topic does not satisfy the criterion for completeness, I am failing this nomination.--十八 23:08, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Arsenal F.C.[edit]

Contributor(s): Cekli829

I believe this topic meets the criteria, as over 50%+ of the articles or lists are featured and there are no obvious gaps. The topic is in keeping with previous topics of this nature such as Liverpool... Thanks in advance for your comments. ►Cekli 829 13:21, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, not a complete topic History of Arsenal F.C. (1966–present) is missing and is a Start class. MPJ-DK (talk) 19:12, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just like this nomination, I am failing this nomination. GamerPro64 21:50, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Eurovision Song Contest[edit]

List of Eurovision Song Contest winners

51 articles

"List of countries in the Eurovision Song Contest"

"Eurovision Song Contest 2012"

"Eurovision Song Contest 2013"

"Eurovision Song Contest 2014"

"Armenia–Azerbaijan relations in the Eurovision Song Contest"

"Eurovision Song Contest's Greatest Hits"

"Junior Eurovision Song Contest"

"Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2014"

"Lebanon in the Eurovision Song Contest"

"Austria in the Eurovision Song Contest 2014"

"Greece in the Eurovision Song Contest 2005"

"Greece in the Eurovision Song Contest 2006"

"Greece in the Eurovision Song Contest 2008"

"Ireland in the Eurovision Song Contest 2007"

"Ireland in the Eurovision Song Contest 2008"

"Malta in the Eurovision Song Contest 2016"

"Netherlands in the Eurovision Song Contest 2014"

"Melodifestivalen"

"Pan Celtic Festival"

"Anggun"

"Paul Oscar"

"ABU Radio Song Festival 2012"

"ABU TV Song Festival 2012"

"Yodel It!"

"May'n"

"Believe in Me (Bonnie Tyler song)"

"Dincolo de nori"

"Don't Break My Heart (Nicola song)"

"Eu cred"

"Flying the Flag (For You)"

"Goodbye (The Humans song)"

"I Admit (Sanda song)"

"Let Me Try"

"Miracle (Paula Seling and Ovi song)"

"Pe-o margine de lume"

"Playing with Fire (Paula Seling and Ovi song)"

"Rhythm Inside (Loïc Nottet song)"

"Spring of Life (song)"

"Taken by a Stranger"

"Tell Me Why (Monica Anghel and Marcel Pavel song)"

"The Moon (song)"

I believe this topic meets the criteria at WP:FT. Comments from everyone are appreciated. --►Cekli 829 08:12, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Oppose This is just a random collection of good and featured content related to Eurovision, not a complete or concise topic. The first song article I looked at: I have no idea why Spring of Life (song) is here...it's not one of the List of Eurovision Song Contest winners nor does that article mention it! Please review the FT guidelines of what makes a topic. Reywas92^Talk 10:05, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Confused - what is the actual topic? Name says "Eurovision Song Contest" and the lead article says "List of Eurovision Song Contest winners" which is not the same. So if the topic is "Eurovision Song Contest" it fails because the lead article is a "B" class, if it's "winners" then it has a large number of articles that are unrelated, should only have the list and the songs that actually won in my opinion. MPJ-DK (talk) 18:02, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and speedy close: see criterion 1(d), "A topic must not cherry pick only the best articles to become featured together." That's precisely what's happened here—the articles are a mixture of contests themselves, "[country] in [contest year]", singers and songs. All could be good or featured topics on their own, but only as complete lists. For instance, with the topic implied by the list—List of Eurovision Song Contest winners—there could be a topic for all songs or all singers who have won the contest, but this would need to be every song/singer from 1956 to the most recent winner, and the current state of articles makes this a very long way off happening at the moment. (The presented submission also fails criterion 3(a), and should have been a good topic submission). — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 10:17, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per all the above. This seems to be a collection of all the Good/Featured articles which relate to Eurovision, but that does not make it a valid topic. I think maybe the nominator has misunderstood the concept of a topic -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:55, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The consensus is obvious. I am failing this nomination and I caution the nominator to read the rules here for Featured Topics. GamerPro64 21:49, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]