Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/Featured log/May 2018

Good topic candidates: view - edit - history

History of the Manhattan Project

Manhattan Project

35 articles

Timeline of the Manhattan Project

Project Alberta

Alsos Mission

Ames Project

Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki

Atomic Energy Act of 1946

British contribution to the Manhattan Project

Calutron

Project Camel

Chicago Pile-1

Clinton Engineer Works

Dayton Project

Einstein-Szilard letter

Fat Man

Hanford Site

Interim Committee

K-25

Little Boy

Metallurgical Laboratory

Montreal Laboratory

Operation Crossroads

P-9 Project

Operation Peppermint

Pumpkin bomb

Quebec Agreement

S-1 Executive Committee

S-50 (Manhattan Project)

Salt Wells Pilot Plant

Silverplate

Smyth Report

Thin Man

Trinity (nuclear test)

X-10 Graphite Reactor

Project Y

These are all the pages in Category:History of the Manhattan Project. It forms a complete history of the Manhattan Project. Of the 35 articles in the set, 17 are Featured Articles and the timeline is a Featured List. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:51, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

• This sort of topic definitely needs an intro paragraph to explain the link between these 30 articles. Plus, it needs a book. Nergaal (talk) 08:53, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

  The book creator was turned off in September 2017. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:55, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

  I have created it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:15, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Still needs an intro, and please order the book in a readable manner. Right now it is impossible to gauge the completeness of the topic without doing serious research. Nergaal (talk) 08:10, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

I carefully ordered the articles in the book. It starts with the main article and the timeline. The other articles then follow in general chronological order. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:26, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes but that is in your own head. Without an intro and/or a decent book nobody can judge your own rationale. See Wikipedia:Featured_topics/Looking_Glass_Studios_video_games Nergaal (talk) 17:06, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

I have added a introduction above. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:21, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. What line of thought you used to decide having these 35 articles selected, and not say 34 or 36? Right now it is hard to gauge how complete this overview topic is, since you only mentioned about 20 of the 35 articles in the intro. Nergaal (talk) 18:16, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

This is a confusing topic. It is unclear how exactly is it defined, and the thought process itself is not clear. Why does "History of" have locations? Do you have a plan for an overview topic of the MP which would include locations/people/etc? Nergaal (talk) 13:31, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

What you're thinking of as locations are actually projects. I already proposed an overview topic that included people, based on the infobox, where the most significant people were chosen based on editor consensus (similar to the vital article process), but this was rejected. There are 384 articles in Category:Manhattan Project people, of which 60 were chosen for the infobox. All of the infobox articles (and perhaps 100 of the category) are rated GA or better, but there is no chance of them all being. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:16, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Ok, but do you have some sort of rationale listed somewhere for how topics around MP should be organized? It's unclear to me why these exact 35 were chosen, and not a different set of 35. The topic seems fine, but I can't navigate through the 35 articles and say wether article xyz is missing or should be removed. Was this list of 35 chosen in the past by some kind of peer review? Nergaal (talk) 08:28, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

The list consists of all the articles in the category Category:History of the Manhattan Project. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:11, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

I just saw the previous nomination and it had the same issue back then: how is the topic organized? The proposed topic in its current form might be 100% fine, but if you can't be bothered to explain the rationale you see for organizing the topic in the form you yourself proposed, why should reviewers be bothered to agree to your unexplained rationale? Nergaal (talk) 08:32, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

I explained it all above in the blurb. These are the historical articles. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:11, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

One more thing: a topic with the title "People involved in the MP" could have a FL lead, but it would not necessarily include any more people that the ones you put in here. The a large topic, can just include the most important people; if there are 384 people, there can be just a topic with the most relevant 20 people or so. The point of a topic is to collect articles in a rational, structured manner, and focusing on the most relevant articles in that specific topic is perfectly fine. For example, the topic on the Asteroid belt in the Solar System only includes the 4 largest bodies there (of the hundreds), since all the other asteroids are much smaller than the first 4. Nergaal (talk) 08:36, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

No, you would say that you don't understand why those were chosen. But I have no intention of creating a topic on the Manhattan Project people, because (1) No lead article exists; (2) there is no criteria for creating a subset of the group (although the important articles were chosen by consensus and placed in the navbox); (3) there is no possibility of getting all 384 in the category up to GA standard; (4) the category will continue to expand (I added two more last week); and (5) a topic subset based on a common navbox has already been rejected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:11, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Here is a serious suggestion: start a personal page listing all the important articles to the MP, then put in there multiple topics proposals so people like me can give SOME feedback on how such a massive topic can be structured rationally. I a sure you spent years putting everything together, why not have a structured place for it? Nergaal (talk) 08:39, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

It already exists at User:Hawkeye7. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:11, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand why are you actively choosing to be a pain. This is a complex topic, and all the decisions on how this topic is put together is inside your head, with no option to peer-review the thought process. WP:FT? lists 1.e as: "(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." All the nomination process you have pretty much said "trust me, there is no need to explain my thought process on how this topic passes 1.e". Anyways, List of Cornell Manhattan Project people already exists, and I am sure an expanded list is perfectly ok. And again: For example, the topic on the Asteroid belt in the Solar System only includes the 4 largest bodies there (of the hundreds), since all the other asteroids are much smaller than the first 4. There are way more than 384 asteroids but the topic does exist even though only like 10 of those are GA . Nergaal (talk) 11:56, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Maybe you might find it useful to check Wikipedia:Featured_topic_criteria/Overview_topics#Example_2:_Michigan_State_University to see what I am asking for when I say show your thought process. Nergaal (talk) 12:01, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

where the most significant people were chosen based on editor consensus (similar to the vital article process) where is the talk page for this consensus? Nergaal (talk) 18:30, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support, excellent work Hawkeye. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 12:57, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
• Comment I recall you had submitted this once before. Would you be able to provide a list of the differences between the two lists? Kees08 (Talk) 00:45, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

  The previous one was a larger list based on the contents of the Manhattan Project Navbox. The criticism was that it was based on the Navbox rather than a topic category. So I created a new FT based on one of the categories. There was one anomalous article in the category, which has since been added to the NavBox and promoted to GA. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:36, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

• Support Seems to include all the top level important bits. Kees08 (Talk) 01:45, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
• Support - Wow, incredible work. I find the topic very thorough, and can't think of a related page that would be need to add to this topic. Mattximus (talk) 19:50, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
• Support really amazing work. Thank you for this. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:45, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
• Support looks good to me. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:01, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose I guess. Topic seems a mishmash of articles that are not clearly the only ones supposed to be included. Repeated requests of asking for the inclusion rationale got back trust me the nominator, I know the topic, and I don't want to show my thought process for the scope of the topic to reviewers; you are all supposed to say support, cause after working on 20 articles, I can't be bothered to explain my own topic for others to peer-review my thought process. It is not up to the reviewers to prove that the topic is complete, but to the nominator. Nergaal (talk) 11:45, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

  That's not what is in the instructions. It says: For a topic to be promoted to featured topic status, consensus must be reached that it meets the criteria and if nothing can be done in principle to fix the source of the objection, the objection may be ignored. 02:57, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

  "if nothing can be done in principle to fix the source of the objection" as I've asked you mulyiple times, you can explain the actual rationale behind these specific 35, beyond just "trust me". Nergaal (talk) 23:06, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

  The 35 form a topical category, and comprise a comprehensive history of the Manhattan Project. I summarised the Manhattan Project above, highlighting how the articles fit together. They were created individually by many editors, who decided their individual scope. I brought most of them to GA or FA; they are not cherry picked. The book and category would be useful to readers researching the subject, which is why I have nominated it. What specific subjects do you feel are not covered? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:32, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

• Closed with a consensus to promote to Featured Topic. - GamerPro64 14:13, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

My Truth

My Truth

3 articles

"Electric"

"Play"

Contributor(s): Pancake

I promoted these three articles to GA status back in 2015-2016. Information is sparse as these releases were never serviced internationally, and two other singles are non-notable per WP:NMUSIC, thus can never be GAs. As this topic is as complete as it can get, I believe it suffices the requirements for a good topic. --Pancake (talk) 19:38, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

• Support - contains the two singles that have articles; if the other singles become articles, obviously they will have to be included as well. Kees08 (Talk) 17:33, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
• Support Looks good. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:16, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
• Closed with a consensus to promote to Good Topic.--十八 00:10, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Inna albums

Inna albums

6 articles

Hot ^(subtopic)

Inna ^(subtopic)

I Am the Club Rocker ^(subtopic)

Nirvana ^(subtopic)

Party Never Ends ^(subtopic)

Contributor(s): Cartoon network freak

All articles have been promoted, so I think this should be passed too. --Cartoon network freak (talk) 16:42, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

• Support but consider changing topic name to Inna studio albums since you do not include the video album. Kees08 (Talk) 20:24, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

@Kees08: Hi there and thank you! I'm hesitant about changing the name, as the video album does not have its article. We can wait for more opinions to come... Best; Cartoon network freak (talk) 20:43, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

• Support All albums can be included later point of time under this umbrella term so its fine. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 07:04, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

@Cartoon network freak:, please create the Book for this topic, it shows as red link. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 07:05, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

@IndianBio:  Done Thank you! Cartoon network freak (talk) 07:34, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

• Support great work, also the album Inna, should be in italics in the template. – jona ✉ 18:17, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

• Support looks good. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:08, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
• Closed with a consensus to promote to Good Topic.--十八 23:52, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Supplementary nominations

1. Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Inna albums/addition1

Nirvana

Nirvana

4 articles

"Gimme Gimme"

"Ruleta"

"Nirvana"

Contributor(s): Cartoon network freak

All the articles have been promoted, so I think this should be passed as well. --Cartoon network freak (talk) 16:36, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

• Support, good job! Kees08 (Talk) 20:25, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support looks good. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:09, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
• Closed with a consensus to promote to Good Topic.--十八 23:39, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Hot

Hot is the debut studio album by Romanian singer Inna, released in August 2009. Five singles have been released from the record to commercial success in several countries. The album itself reached various record charts and sold 500,000 units worldwide.

Hot

6 articles

"Hot"

"Amazing"

"Love"

"10 Minutes"

"Déjà Vu"

Contributor(s): Cartoon network freak

All articles have been expanded by me and have been promoted to GA, so I think this should be promoted too. --Cartoon network freak (talk) 10:15, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

• Support - music is pretty catchy too. Kees08 (Talk) 07:45, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support Looks like it meets the criteria to me. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:06, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
• Comment @Cartoon network freak: please create the book. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 03:44, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

@IndianBio:  Fixed Cartoon network freak (talk) 06:24, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

@IndianBio: Hey there, seeing if maybe you missed the first ping and would be willing to support with your change incorporated. Kees08 (Talk) 19:02, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

• Closed with a consensus to promote to Good Topic.--十八 23:23, 9 May 2018 (UTC)