Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/Good log/October 2020

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Punic Wars

[edit]

The Punic Wars were a series of three wars between 264 and 146 BC fought by the states of Rome and Carthage. All three were won by Rome. The First Punic War broke out in Sicily in 264 BC and lasted 23 years, until 241 BC, when after immense materiel and human losses on both sides the Carthaginians were defeated. The end of the war sparked a major but unsuccessful 4-year-long revolt within the Carthaginian Empire known as the Mercenary War. The Second Punic War began in 218 BC and witnessed Hannibal's crossing of the Alps and invasion of mainland Italy. The successful Roman invasion of the Carthaginian homeland in Africa in 204 BC led to Hannibal's recall and to Carthage suing for peace after 17 years of war. Carthage ceased to be a military threat but Rome contrived a justification to declare war again in 149 BC in the Third Punic War. The Romans stormed the city of Carthage in 146 BC, sacked it, slaughtered most of its population and completely demolished it.

edit | discuss
Punic Wars
5 articles
First Punic War
Mercenary War
Second Punic War
Third Punic War
Contributor(s): Gog the Mild

This is a fairly straight forward set. There are three Punic wars, and the Mercenary War is usually considered a part of the wider conflict, so there it is. --Gog the Mild (talk) 17:18, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

T8612: Because the topic here is just the wars; and Mercenary War is included. If one were to nominate an individual war or campaign, then one would need to include all of the battles etc which made it up. As with Guadalcanal Campaign or my earlier Crécy campaign. If the top line article is a set of wars, then only the wars making it up need or should feature, as with Silesian Wars. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:14, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how I missed Mercenary War lol. All right then, supporting. T8612 (talk) 23:46, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1985 World Snooker Championship final

[edit]

The 1985 World Snooker Championship final was held between Taylor and Davis and is widely considered the most well known snooker match of all time. This good topic covers the two competitors, the article on the final, and that of the event.

Please note - I have never written a good topic before, so please let me know if I've done anything wrong. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:02, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

edit | discuss
1985 World Snooker Championship final
4 articles
1985 World Snooker Championship
John Williams
Steve Davis
Dennis Taylor
Contributor(s): Lee Vilenski
I disagree to a point - but I'm not 100% on the criteria. You could make the argument that there's others, such as the commentary team that would be also suitable, but a little irrelevant to the final itself. We don't have a similar match type GT or FT to match with this, but especially in snooker, the referees job is quite passive. Open to fixing up the article though. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:13, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've done a bit of a tidy on that article. I can't find much else on them, right now it's only slightly better than a stub. They are obviously a big deal in terms that they had taken charge of nine world finals, (and the rain incident) but there isn't much else. Might be some paper citations out there, but I'm not sure this can be beefed out too much. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 22:42, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Armbrust - I don't know the rules around this, but John Williams (snooker referee) is now a GA. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:04, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support if the referee is included in the topic. Armbrust The Homunculus 11:55, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First Battle of Newtonia Historic District

[edit]
edit | discuss
First Battle of Newtonia Historic District
3 articles
First Battle of Newtonia
Mathew H. Ritchey House

I'm nominating this for good topic, and it's my first experience with doing this, so I hope this is done correctly. I've got the National historic district at GA, the battle that's preserved by the district at FA, and the lone notable contributing property at GA. I think this meets the good topic criteria, but since this is my first attempt, we'll see. Hog Farm Bacon 15:48, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. This is a bit of a specialist one, but it does, in my opinion, meet the GT criteria. Nice work. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:00, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Support: Good topic Criterion 1(c) says that the articles in the topic should all "be linked together, preferably using a template, and share a common category or super-category." The main article links to the other two, and each of the supporting articles links to the main, but I don't think they link to each other, and there's no navbox or anything like that. I also don't see any shared category or even near-range super-category. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 17:23, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Bryanrutherford0: - I've added a few main/further links at the tops of sections. They were all linked to each other inline (battle → house in the historic district section, house → battle in the history section), but I've added templates to the others. They're all in Category:Newtonia, Missouri, which covers this topic and a few outside of this topic's scope, and have been for several months. I could create Category:First Battle of Newtonia Historic District, but creating small categories for the sake of creating them isn't something I view as particularly productive. A navbox would also have few links, and they're all linked to each other prominently enough now that I don't see it'd be particularly useful to create one. Does my linking changes help with this? Hog Farm Bacon 17:41, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I think Category:Newtonia, Missouri probably does the trick; I agree that there's no reason to create a category or a navbox just for the sake of this topic. Fair enough I can support this. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 17:44, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Melodrama

[edit]

Melodrama is the second studio album by New Zealand singer Lorde, released through Universal, Lava and Republic Records on 16 June 2017. A departure from the minimalist style of her debut album Pure Heroine (2013), it is a pop and electropop record incorporating piano instrumentation and maximalist electronic beats. It was primarily written and produced by Lorde and Jack Antonoff, with production input by several high-profile producers including Frank Dukes, Flume, Malay, S1 and Joel Little. Melodrama has been described as a loose concept album that explores the theme of solitude.

edit | discuss
Melodrama
11 articles
"Green Light"
"Perfect Places"
"Homemade Dynamite"
"Liability"
"Sober"
"The Louvre"
"Supercut"
"Hard Feelings/Loveless"
"Writer in the Dark"
Melodrama World Tour
Contributor(s): De88

Every article on this topic now meets the GA criteria. --De88 (talk) 04:26, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support: Looks like the album, all the tracks, and the tour. There doesn't appear to be a concert film or anything else like that. The're all linked by a navbox template, and they share a super-category. I think it's good to go! Good work! -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 12:39, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments: Remove "Pretty Much Amazing" sources as it is a "music blog started in 2008 and maintained by Daniel, a self-proclaimed music nerd." It is featured on most of the articles. On the song, "The Louvre" there are no wikilinks on the references. That also applies to other aticles such as "Hard Feelings/Loveless", which doesn't have wikilinks to "The Line of Best Fit", "New York Times" and so on...give a good glance at it on the other articles as well. On the aforementioned song the "Pigeons and Planes" source redirects to a broken link affiliated with Complex. All in all, despite the notability of the articles above being shown I have serious doubts regarding "Writer in the Dark" as it doesn't pass WP:NS since "Coverage of a song in the context of an album review does not establish notability." Moreover, it fails the three factors listed in the wikipage. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 00:00, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @MarioSoulTruthFan: If I recall correctly, Pretty Much Amazing is one of the sources that Metacritic uses to compile their aggregate scores. I was under the assumption that this site had some credibility to its name. Also, are wikilinks in the citation necessary? I have seen many GAs only wikilink when mentioning the source in the body, not the citation itself. I went ahead and nominated "Writer in the Dark" for deletion. De88 (talk) 14:56, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • De88 I guess not every site in the aggregater is a reliable source? I mean it says it is a "blog" and I can't find anything on the editor online, like if he has worked for other publications or so. I have never seen that? They wikilink in the body and minimum once in the references. Another Believer this is the place to discuss it since it is part of the good topic nomination. The nominator and creator of the article did it for me. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 22:43, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@MarioSoulTruthFan: From the website itself:

Pretty Much Amazing is a music blog started in 2008 and maintained by Daniel, a self-proclaimed music nerd. PMA was once called “the true keepers of serendipity” in The New Yorker. MTV considered PMA one of the “best independent music blogs,” and “a blog you should know.” The Toronto Star very kindly described PMA as “indispensable,” and the New York Post said Pretty Much Amazing was “one of those little website crumbs of deliciousness [we] visit every morning.” PMA used to be a daily publication. In 2020, this site will exist as an archive to more than 11,000 posts on music, including over 1,000 album reviews. New content will still be published...

Pretty Much Amazing

The site clearly has been recognised by other established publications. Does that not warrant some notability? If Metacritic, a website cited frequently in Wikipedia articles, recognises PMA as a valid source for gauging their aggregate scores, then I do not see why it cannot be used here as well.

Update: "Writer in the Dark" has survived AfD. ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:48, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CMLL World Micro-Estrellas Champions

[edit]

The CMLL World Micro-Estrellas Champions (Campeonato Mundial Micro-Estrellas de CMLL in Spanish) was a professional wrestling championship promoted by Consejo Mundial de Lucha Libre (CMLL) since December 2019. The topic includes all notable members who have competed for the championship.

edit | discuss
CMLL World Micro-Estrellas Champions and challengers
7 articles
Chamuel
Microman
El Gallito
Zacarías el Perico
Guapito
Mije
Contributor(s): MPJ-DK

This represents a complete topic of the championship, including the title itself, the champion and everyone involved with the tournament to crown the first champion. It actually includes all notable Mini-Estrellas in CMLL so it is unlikely to change significantly over time and would be manageable. It has a unifying template etc. --MPJ-DK (talk) 12:48, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_and_good_topic_candidates/Good_log/October_2020&oldid=1000210327"