Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates

Featured and good topics in 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 Aza24 and Bryan Rutherford, 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: Featured articles Featured lists Featured pictures Featured topics Good content: Good articles Good topics Featured and good topic tools: Topic criteria Topic candidates Topic removal candidates Nomination procedure Topic log Topics on the Main Page Former topics Topic questions

Nomination procedure 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 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

Anne Hathaway

Anne Hathaway (born 1982) is an American actress. The recipient of multiple awards, she was one of the highest-paid actresses in the world in 2015, and her films have earned more than $6.8 billion worldwide. She made her breakthrough in the comedy The Princess Diaries (2001). After struggling to find success in family films, she transitioned to adult roles in the 2005 dramas Havoc and Brokeback Mountain, followed by the parts of an assistant to a fashion magazine editor in The Devil Wears Prada (2006) and a recovering alcoholic in Rachel Getting Married (2008). Hathaway then starred in the romantic films Bride Wars (2009), Valentine's Day (2010), and Love & Other Drugs (2010), and in the fantasy film Alice in Wonderland (2010). In 2012, she starred as Catwoman in The Dark Knight Rises and as Fantine in the musical drama Les Misérables, for which she won the Academy Award for Best Supporting Actress. She has since played a scientist in Interstellar (2014), the owner of an online fashion site in the comedy The Intern (2015), a haughty actress in the heist film Ocean's 8 (2018) and Rebekah Neumann in the miniseries WeCrashed (2022).

| discuss 3 articles Anne Hathaway
Performances Awards and nominations

Contributor(s): FrB.TG

Three featured class articles to complete the trilogy of actress Anne Hathaway. My contributions are to the FA-class biography and the FL-class awards and nominations list. Her filmography was taken to FL by user Krish!. --FrB.TG (talk) 15:01, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

• Support: Seems to cover all the expected lists for an actor, linked by a navbox and everything. Great work! -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 15:41, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support Comments refs 19, 35, 55, 190, 199, a citation of ref 205, refs 224 and 229 on the main article need to be removed or replaced per WP:RSP on International Business Times, HuffPost contributors, People's reliability for contentious claims, The Daily Beast, Forbes contributors, PR Newsire and The New York Post, while the same applies to refs 34, 73 and 91 since they fall under WP:SELFPUB. Also, refs 76 and 170 are missing publishers, ref 80 has MOS:QWQ issues and ref 169 includes MOS:CAPS violations. There are problems with formatting; Deadline Hollywood should be cited the same for all refs, not ever being listed as Deadline or using the publisher parameter, while you should always cite People not PEOPLE.com and only cite Variety for any of those refs. The Daily Beast also needs to be removed or replaced from the performances article, where the Deadline Hollywood problem is also prominent, alongside ref 53 having MOS:CAPS issues, refs 66, 67, 69 and 70, lack of consistency in citing The A.V. Club, YouTube not stylized correctly and ref 54 not having the citation filled in at all apart from the title. Finally, the awards and nominations article needs the replacement or removal of Asian News International per WP:RSP and MOS:CAPS issues fixed with refs 30, 39 and 59. These are a lot of issues but hopefully once they are resolved, this should make for a solid FT! --K. Peake 20:39, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

All done, except for removing the People source, as it was an interview with her. Thank you. FrB.TG (talk) 22:27, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

FrB.TG I have struck out of all of the issues, apart from ones that still stand. --K. Peake 06:30, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Kyle Peake, sorry but what is missing or incorrect in the YouTube source? FrB.TG (talk) 07:49, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

You should stylize as YouTube, not youtube. --K. Peake 09:01, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Oh, my bad. It should be corrected now. Many thanks. FrB.TG (talk) 09:14, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

I appreciate your hard work on this, where the last issue has now been fixed! --K. Peake 10:09, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

• Support: Great work on these articles! --Pseud 14 (talk) 20:00, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support: I have no problems in support after a thorough review of the sources by Kyle Peake. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 20:36, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Solar system

The Solar system is a gravitationally bound system consisting of the Sun and the celestial bodies that orbit it. After the Sun, the largets objects in the Solar system are the eight planets, consiting of the four gas and ice giants as well as the four terrestrial planets. Many of the planets and larger dwarf planets in the Solar System also have moons of their own. The sun is orbited by several belts of small Solar System bodies: the asteroid belt between the orbits of Mars and Jupiter, the Kuiper belt just beyond the orbit of Neptune, and possibly the Oort cloud in the outer reaches of the Solar System. The entire system was formed roughly 4.6 billion years ago from the remnants of the Sun's molecular cloud, and the hydrogen and helium that was present in this cloud constitutes much of the Solar System's mass.

| discuss 18 articles Solar system
Sun Mercury Venus Earth Mars Jupiter Saturn Uranus Neptune Pluto Ceres Eris Makemake Haumea Asteroid belt Kuiper belt Oort cloud

Contributor(s): Mover of molehills, Praemonitus, too many others to count!

I just finished a length review for Jupiter, which was the last Solar system-related article that was not FA. I think that the Wikipedia community has done a great job getting so many of these articles to featured status. --Mover of molehills (talk) 18:51, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

• Comments: In case this isn't clear, the Solar System is a Former Featured Topic, and this nomination is leaving out a number of articles that were in the topic's previous incarnation. Probably those should be included in this re-nomination? Jupiter is also itself a Former Featured Topic that should be able to be renominated now that the main article is back to GA. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 19:02, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Indeed, this nomination should presumably be a renomination of Wikipedia:Featured topics/Solar System. Mover of molehills, are you genuinely proposing a new scope for this topic, or were you unaware of the former topic, Wikipedia:Featured topics/Solar System? Aza24 (talk) 23:30, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

    I was unaware, sorry. Should we move it over? Mover of molehills (talk) 00:36, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

• Query: why is Pluto there? If dwarf planets are to be included the topic is missing quite a few. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:04, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
• I just added the extra dwarf planets found in the original FT nomination to round the proposal out! Mover of molehills (talk) 20:32, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Haumea and Makemake are excluded while Ceres and Eris are included because ... ? Gog the Mild (talk) 20:40, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps because of the extensive scientific study the later objects have undergone? Notability isn't necessarily about size, although it helps. Praemonitus (talk) 21:15, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

I chose to include some of the most well-known dwarf planets - obviously, there is no way that we can include every interesting article in the Solar System within this topic. However, I'd be happy to include Haumea and/or Makemake if there is widespread consensus for it, considering that these are both featured articles. Mover of molehills (talk) 21:22, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Before we go for consensus, let's check the facts. None of the four are nailed on as DPs, although Ceres is getting pretty close. It was a genuine question as to where and why you are drawing the line. And I would be interested whether the scholarly consensus agrees with whatever you suggest. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:27, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

• I'm not sure what you mean by "None of the four are nailed on as DPs" - as far as I can tell, all of them have been officially designated as such by the IAU. To be honest, it doesn't matter very much to me which ones are designated as part of this topic, considering that all of the articles we are discussing are FAs. I suppose it seems reasonable to list the five bodies officially recognized as dwarf planets (Pluto, Eris, Ceres, Makemake and Haumea) and ignore all of the rest. Does that seem like a good idea? Mover of molehills (talk) 23:15, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

The last I heard, Makemake and Haumea were provisional DPs for naming purposes only. Their full DP status was undecided. It is possible that my information is not up to date. Apologies if I am either not being clear and/or am coming across as awkward, but what are the criteria for inclusion in the topic? So it can be updated if new objects meeting them are recognised (eg 10 Hygiea, 704 Interamnia, Sedna, Gonggong, Quaoar, Orcus, or Salacia) - by whatever body or consensus you lay out in those criteria - or, possibly, de-recognised (eg if Eris turned out on closer examination not to be in hydrostatic equilibrium). Such as, if my information is still accurate, Makemake or Haumea once the IAU finally decide their status. (Assuming that you go with IAU recognition.) Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 00:27, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

From what I have read, there are only 5 at the mooment that have been officially recognized by the IAU. I have now added all of them to the topic. My idea for what should be part of the "Solar system" topic was the Sun, all planets, all officially recognized dwarf planets, and the three major belts of small Solar System bodies. It may be that there will be an unwieldy number of dwarf planets recognized in coming years, so we should just leave them out entirely - I just feel uncomfortable excluding Pluto, since it's such a cultural icon.

For now, I have included Makemake and Haumea in the topic. Let me know what you think of this. Mover of molehills (talk) 01:45, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Ok. "... and dwarf planets recognised as such by the IAU, including provisionally and/or for naming purposes" would seem to complete a sensible set. It may be worth adding this clause to the opening description.

Support. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:33, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Good topic nominations

Hulk video games

The Hulk, a fictional character from the Marvel Comics universe, has appeared in several video games starting with the 1984 graphic adventure title Questprobe featuring The Hulk. He has appeared on home and handheld consoles in games developed by various companies, including Radical Entertainment and Edge of Reality. Apart from his standalone titles, which are often action-based beat 'em ups, the Hulk has appeared in other Marvel-based games within an ensemble cast, in which he may be accompanied by supporting characters such as Abomination and She-Hulk.

| discuss 9 articles Hulk video games
Questprobe featuring The Hulk The Incredible Hulk (1994) The Incredible Hulk: The Pantheon Saga Hulk The Incredible Hulk (2003) The Incredible Hulk: Ultimate Destruction The Incredible Hulk (2008) The Incredible Hulk (Nintendo DS)

Contributor(s): Cat's Tuxedo

All eight articles pertaining to the Hulk's standalone titles are GA, while the list detailing all of his video game appearances is FL. --Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 02:24, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

• Support: So, the scope is the Hulk-only standalone titles; I think that works. They're all joined by a navbox and category, although those also contain many other articles that don't fit this scope. I can support it! Good work! -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 13:22, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support. Good Job! Panini! • 🥪 18:46, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support the scope as defined works for me, all the necessary articles seem to be there. AryKun (talk) 07:09, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

MDNA

MDNA is the twelfth studio album by American singer Madonna, released on March 23, 2012, by Interscope Records. The album was conceived while the singer was busy throughout 2011 with filming her directorial venture, W.E.. It features guest features by female rappers M.I.A. and Nicki Minaj. A pop and EDM record, MDNA consists of upbeat songs which lyrically explore themes of partying, love for music, infatuation, as well as heartbreak, revenge and separation. The album's title is a triple entendre, and its allusion to MDMA drew negative reception from anti-drug groups.

It was Madonna's first release under the 360 deal she had signed with Live Nation in 2007 and the three-album deal with Interscope in 2012. The record received promotion from Madonna's performance at Super Bowl XLVI halftime show as well as the MDNA Tour, the latter becoming one of the highest-grossing tours of all time. Four singles were released—"Give Me All Your Luvin'", "Girl Gone Wild", "Masterpiece" and "Turn Up the Radio". Its first single reached number ten on the Billboard Hot 100 extending Madonna's then record as the artist with the most top-ten singles in that chart's history.

Music critics were ambivalent towards the album, which topped the record charts in most musical markets. Madonna set a new record for the most number-one albums by a solo artist in Australia and the United Kingdom. MDNA was the twelfth best-selling album of 2012 globally, and went on to sell two million copies.

| discuss 11 articles MDNA
"Girl Gone Wild" "Gang Bang" "Turn Up the Radio" "Give Me All Your Luvin'" "Superstar" "I Don't Give A" "Masterpiece" The MDNA Tour MDNA World Tour Super Bowl XLVI halftime show

Contributor(s): Christian, IndianBio, 11JORN

The article of Madonna's twelfth studio album, its singles/songs and promotional performances, all cover the criteria needed to be promoted to Featured/Good topic. --Christian (talk) 16:03, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support: All the singles and notable tracks, the tour, the tour album, and the Super Bowl performance, all at GA. Looks comprehensive! -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 21:10, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
• Comments: You need to make things more standard either "work and publisher" or only "work". Some articles have both, others don't have both. I would suggest removing the publisher when you have work already. Mainly on the articles of "I Don't Give A", "Masterpiece" and "Gang Bang". I already fixed it on "Superstar". On "Masterpiece", HuffPost contributors must be removed per WP:RSP, "Gang Bang" has the same problem on the external link, so any information related to it must either be removed or replaced. On "Girl Gone Wild" reference 23 has its publisher in all capital letters, reference 39 doesn't have an author or work/publisher, Pitchfork Media → Pitchfork (Website), reference 47 has no date, reference 78 is dead needs fixing, reference 92 has no work/publisher. Moreover, International Business Times and New York Post must be removed/replaced per WP:RSP.

• Hi! could you please add all the comments so I can fix them all at once? Right now personal stuff takes up most of my time and I'm not as available here on wiki as other times. Thank you!! Christian (talk) 16:35, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

  I will do my best. MTV is always publisher. On "Turn Up the Radio"; Pitchfork Media → Pitchfork (Website), You have MTV News as both publisher and work, which one? Reference 50 you have both publisher and work, source 52 is work, a lot of publisher and work: reference 53-55, 57, 58, MuuMuse → wikilink, 67, 68, 70, 73 and 75. I might have missed some stuff. On "Give Me All Your Luvin", source 13-16 (publisher or work?), Medium is an unreliable source, source 40, 52, 53, 56, on 58 where is the staff/authors? Again 93, 94, 118-120, not sure if Fashionista is a reliable source, but I will take it. Souce 139 and 143 are dead. Basically, the biggest issues are MTV and MTV News. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 13:43, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

  I'm not sure why the Super Bowl XLVI halftime show article was included here. She performed one song from this album during it. Can you explain it to me? MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 18:38, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

  On the The MDNA Tour, there are two PopCrush sources, as well as a HuffPost contributor, and New York Post which are considered unreliable ad must be removed and their info either removed or replaced by reliable ones. Some sources have been questioned but no consensus has been reached or they are walking on thin ice, so I won't address those. Every article has "madonna.com" → Official Madonna website. On the MDNA World Tour, wikilink first instance of The New York Times and unlink the second, Madonna.com → Official Madonna website (19, 23, 28, 29 and 118), remove the location of the Daily Telegraph, reference 25 and 26 missing author, Digital Spy is both as work and publisher.

  MDNA album New York Post and PR Newswire must be removed/replaced per WP:RSP. Madonna.com → Official Madonna website, Pitchfork Media → Pitchfork

Chrishm21 I have pointed out every issue that needs to be fixed. Let me know once you are done. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 12:42, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

• Support. Panini! • 🥪 17:28, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support: All elements that could reasonably be covered by an article look to be accounted for and up to the standard. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 17:52, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support for a job well done! --Kekkomereq1 (talk) 15:32, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support. Deserved. An excellent job! Vera (talk) 01:49, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Topic removal candidates

Group 4 elements

| discuss 5 articles Group 4 elements
Titanium Zirconium Hafnium Rutherfordium

Titanium is no longer at FA, so the topic is ineligible for GT status. AryKun (talk) 07:24, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

• Director comment - Normally we wait three months after a demotion to nominate the topic for review. I'll keep the review up since we are under a month for the grace period and I don't see major work being done at this time to get Titanium to GA status. GamerPro64 06:59, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
• Remove: Unfortunately, the topic is certainly incomplete without Titanium. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 19:07, 29 April 2022 (UTC)