Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Good log/August 2021

2003–04 Arsenal F.C. season

3 articles

2003 FA Community Shield

Battle of Old Trafford

I'm nominating this list for good topic status as it meets the criteria and is a complete account of Arsenal's 2003–04 season. Credit to Lemonade51 who did the hard work on getting the articles promoted. I'm ensuring they're recognised as a complete topic. NapHit (talk) 12:12, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: The quality is there, but I have some comments. There's no category or navbox linking the articles, as recommended by GT criterion 1c; this isn't a bar to nomination, but it suggests that the scope isn't well-defined enough for anyone to have thought it merited a category. I guess the scope is currently "season and any matches notable enough to have their own articles"? Why aren't other matches that they played notable? The "Battle of Old Trafford" isn't treated as a particularly important or notable event in the season article (even the catchy name is piped away). It vaguely strikes me that The Invincibles (English football) might ought to be here, too? I can't tell what the scope is and why it was set there; no offense to the excellent articles! -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 13:09, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'd say the scope is the season article and then notable matches during that season. There's precedent for this, as previous season topics are good topics. WP:FOOTY only creates articles for matches which have long-lasting significance. Such as the Battle of Old Trafford, which has been talked about for years afterwards. This goes along with the finals of cup competitions. Hence, why we don't include other matches played during the season. It was a notable match and gets more coverage than most of the other in the season article. Have to remember it's a season overview, so undue weight can't be given to one match. The Invincibles point is a good one. I can see an argument for and against including it. We probably need more comments on that to decide whether it should be included. NapHit (talk) 13:22, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Bryanrutherford0, do you have any further comments on this? NapHit (talk) 18:28, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd feel more comfortable supporting if "The Invincibles" were part of the nomination, since this topic is half of that article. Without that, I'm still neutral. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 21:01, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. Amazing topic. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 21:01, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support ~~Comments~~ I definitely object to the usage of refs in the lead for the Battle of Old Trafford since they should only be in the body unless it's for stuff like quotes and I have my doubts about the weather service Weather Underground being used as a source in both of the GAs here but mostly, these articles are well-written and thorough in their coverage. --K. Peake 14:13, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for comments, @Kyle Peake:, I've addressed them all. NapHit (talk) 19:44, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
NapHit I had not looked at Weather Underground's usage for 2003 FA Community Shield initially and after finding out it was actually a source for the weather, you could re-add if you want because the service is reliable for things like that. This is not a necessity, so I have changed to support nevertheless. --K. Peake 06:58, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Director comment - this nomination has been stalled for a few weeks. There needs to be more of a consensus before this gets promoted. GamerPro64 01:12, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:00, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think Bryanrutherford makes a good point about The Invincibles (English football) about its possible inclusion in said topic, currently neutral. Spy-cicle💥 ^Talk? 14:21, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Although I understand why users want The Invincibles (English football) included, I think the single matches Arsenal participated in and have a wiki article (the CS final, Battle of OT) and the season itself will do for this topic, since The Invincibles is also about the PNE team from the 19th century. I therefore support this nom - great work. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 07:07, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Closed with a consensus to promote to Good Topic. - GamerPro64 22:30, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1998–99 Manchester United F.C. season

4 articles

1998 FA Charity Shield

1999 FA Cup Final

1999 UEFA Champions League Final

With the recent promotion of 1999 FA Cup Final to GA status, I am nominating these four articles as a Good Topic relating to the 1998–99 Manchester United F.C. season. All of the nominated articles are GA class or above, although the only Featured Article among them is the least important to the set, 1998 FA Charity Shield. – Pee Jay 08:09, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Congrats to User:KingSkyLord and User:Lemonade51 for their part in getting these articles to such a high standard. – Pee Jay 08:15, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support ~~Comments~~ you should not be using refs in the leads of the 1998–99 Manchester United F.C. season and 1999 UEFA Champions League Final articles; make sure all of the information is written in the body too and specifically sourced there. The final paras of both of the articles' leads are too short, which can be fixed by merging with the one above in both cases, plus the reference in the infobox of the latter for the referee is useless. You need to place one article in each column of the template to separate them properly but outside of these comments, the topic's content is of a high quality and well-researched! --K. Peake 12:04, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Kyle Peake: Thanks for your comments. I've made those fixes you suggested, hopefully not to the detriment of the articles in question! – PeeJay 13:32, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Nice to see you have made improvements, but the reference is still in the infobox for the referee. --K. Peake 21:19, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Kyle Peake: Must have missed that one, but it's fixed now. Cheers. – Pee Jay 13:55, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Complete topic of a begrudgingly (as a Liverpool fan) good season. NapHit (talk) 15:40, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support It was a great topic to work on! KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 17:18, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support - looks good to me Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:14, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Question - I have no experience at all with GTC, and was brought here by PeeJay's comment on WT:FOOTY, so I'm a newbie here and this may be a silly question. So the question - shouldn't the article 1998–99 FA Premier League also be included in this topic? Since the lede of the main topic notes that they won the treble, I would believe a GTC should have articles about all three. NapHit says this is a Complete topic, but from a onlooker from the side it doesn't seem complete, unless I'm missing something and would be happy to be enlightened. --SuperJew (talk) 14:25, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Okay, I read over WP:GTCRITERIA now. One of criteria is There are no obvious gaps (missing or low-quality articles) in the topic. In my eyes, not having 1998–99 FA Premier League is an obvious gap, as this is the majority and important part of the 1998–99 Manchester United F.C. season. If the article is improved and included in this GTC, I would support. --SuperJew (talk) 07:34, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
the Venue and ticketing section of the 1999 UCL final has multiple ^{[citation needed]} tags. This will have to be dealt with. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 14:59, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support - great work. For me, the 1998–99 FA Premier League or 1998–99 FA Cup don't have to be included, since all the finals Man Utd played and the season itself are in this topic. I agree with Redman, however, that the Venue and ticketing section of the 1999 UCL final needs addressing, but that won't stop me from supporting this nom. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 07:13, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Closed with a consensus to promote to Good Topic. - GamerPro64 22:52, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you, Gamer. I will work to improve the citations in that one section of 1999 UEFA Champions League Final, and I will also attempt to improve 1998–99 FA Premier League to a decent standard, but I'm glad to see you're happy to promote this topic. – Pee Jay 15:57, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Black Mirror

Black Mirror (2011–2019) is a British anthology television series created by Charlie Brooker. Across its 22 standalone episodes and the interactive film Black Mirror: Bandersnatch, it explores science fiction technologies and dystopias to make commentary on contemporary social issues. The series began on the British network Channel 4 before being commissioned by the online streaming platform Netflix. It garnered critical acclaim and, according to some commentators, led to a repopularisation of the anthology format.

Black Mirror

26 articles

Episodes

Awards and nominations

"The National Anthem"

"Fifteen Million Merits"

"The Entire History of You"

"Be Right Back"

"White Bear"

"The Waldo Moment"

"White Christmas"

"Nosedive"

"Playtest"

"Shut Up and Dance"

"San Junipero"

"Men Against Fire"

"Hated in the Nation"

"USS Callister"

"Arkangel"

"Crocodile"

"Hang the DJ"

"Metalhead"

"Black Museum"

Black Mirror: Bandersnatch

"Striking Vipers"

"Smithereens"

"Rachel, Jack and Ashley Too"

This has been a project of mine for more than half of my time on Wikipedia, beginning with work on "Nosedive" in August 2017, the GA nom in September 2017 and the successful promotion in January 2018. However, the first entry in this list came from Gabriel Yuji, who took "White Bear" to GA. I owe a great deal to many editors and reviewers, including those who are no longer active. Some such people include Adamstom.97, Alex 21, Aoba47, Chairhandlers, Ed! Hameltion, J Milburn, Kingsif, Masem, The Rambling Man, Some Dude From North Carolina, Somethingwickedly and a vanished user whose name I will omit but not forget. (If you've been pinged here and don't know why, it's likely a GA review you did.) — Bilorv (talk) 13:25, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support: We've got the main article, the FL list of episodes, the FL list of awards, and all of the episodes and film at GA or better, and it's all tied together by a category and a navbox. My only comment is that some other image would probably be more illustrative than a photo of the series creator? I suppose we're wanting to avoid the fair-use title card of the show. There's also this PD imitation image that someone has made; is that trademark infringement? Anyway, well done to all who contributed! -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 14:25, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Bryanrutherford0: I think that imitation is fair game—it is a little bit different to the actual logo (which could be ineligible for copyright, but I've been erring on the side that it is copyrighted), but I think it's an improvement. How does it look at its current size? And maybe I can get a more expert opinion on whether the original logo is PD somewhere. — Bilorv (talk) 15:18, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yeah, I think that's a big improvement, if we think it passes legal and policy tests. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 15:29, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yep, from commons:Commons:Village pump/Copyright#Black Mirror logo (permalink) it looks like the original logo is copyrighted, but the imitation is fine. — Bilorv (talk) 14:24, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support - It is truly amazing to see that everything from this series has now become either a GA or FA. Great work! Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 14:45, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Wonderful work with this series! Aoba47 (talk) 17:42, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment First, huge congraulations for the huge work on getting on these articles up to GA+. The only query I have is if that image being used in the topic is allowed? Is the spoof logo not any kind of copyright or trademark infringement? Not an image expert, but wanted to double check. Spy-cicle💥 ^Talk? 14:37, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not a copyright violation because it's a very simple image and doesn't meet the threshold of originality. And I think it can't be a trademark infringement because its purpose is the same as in a large number of GT/FTs e.g. Chartjackers, Doctor Who (season 1)—it's not using the (approximated) logo in a misleading way (e.g. to sell merchandise), just for educational/illustrative purposes. — Bilorv (talk) 19:49, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  Ah I see, thanks for clarification. Great job on this, Support. Regards Spy-cicle💥 ^Talk? 19:50, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support - excellent work, no reason not to support. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:42, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support of course. Great work, great collection. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 18:50, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Great work on the articles, all of them are nicely done. --Ashley yoursmile! 05:50, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent work! Damian Vo (talk) 10:15, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@FGTC coordinators: can I prod one of you to see if this is ready to promote? I'm selfishly hoping it can be promoted by the 29th for WikiCup purposes. — Bilorv (talk) 15:15, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, we're in a bit of a limbo as the bot is being finished up for the promotion process. I can definitely get to this before the 29th; we have to manually update each page so I've been, heh, pushing it off...! Aza24 (talk) 07:29, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yep, I appreciate that's a fair bit of work then. — Bilorv (talk) 08:08, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Closed with a consensus to promote to Good Topic – Aza24 (talk) 19:41, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Supplementary nominations

Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/Black Mirror/addition1

Meet the Woo 2

Meet the Woo 2 is the second mixtape by American rapper Pop Smoke. It was released on February 7, 2020, less than two weeks before the rapper was shot and killed at the age of 20 during a home invasion in Los Angeles. After many months of bringing all the articles to GA; it is finally ready. You know I'm shooting for the stars, aiming for the moon 💫 (talk) 08:25, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Meet the Woo 2

6 articles

"Dior"

"War"

"Christopher Walking"

"Shake the Room"

"Gatti"

Support, Good Job! --Panini!^🥪 12:00, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support with comment: the main article seems to say that the tape was released two weeks before his death, whereas the summary here says it was released two weeks after. Otherwise, it looks right, with the album and all notable tracks at GA, and no tour or film. Good work! -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 13:39, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bryan Rutherford Shoot! Thanks for catching that. You know I'm shooting for the stars, aiming for the moon 💫 (talk) 18:35, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments in the lead of Meet the Woo 2, you should not use "the mixtape" or "it" consecutively; once both have been used, write the album's title again. Also, I do not believe the term "the record" is appropriate for the lead. --K. Peake 18:55, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Peake I have reworded the lead. You know I'm shooting for the stars, aiming for the moon 💫 (talk) 08:59, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support now, great work on this collection of articles! --K. Peake 20:18, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments I have some concerns regarding the source OnSMASH as it describes itself as a blog and the authors are people that go by the name "Legend" and "Viral MVP" on most news, so alter-egos, nothing else can be found online regarding them. The source can be found on "Christopher Walking", "War" and "Meet the Woo 2". Better remove said sources from those articles. I would avoid Facebook and tweet links, I'm sure that information can be replaced by a better source, present on "Meet the Woo 2". The same applies to Youtube links, those performances must have been covered by reliable sources, if not let the YouTube links. I do have some doubts regarding SOHH as a reliable source, you also forgot to add their writers, if you can prove its reliability. Let me know once you have addressed these issues. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 13:22, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MarioSoulTruthFan I have removed SOHH and OnSmash as you have requested. Unfortunately, there are no reliable sources talking about Pop Smoke performing because he was just gaining fame, so the YouTube sources are the only sources to prove that Pop Smoke performed some of the songs from the mixtape. And regarding the Facebook and Twitter sources; those are from Pop Smoke's official accounts and talks about how the tour would have worked out if he was not shot dead. There are also no sources talking about how the tour would have worked out. You know I'm shooting for the stars, aiming for the moon 💫 (talk) 08:55, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A ref is missing on "Christopher Walking". MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 18:13, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support as the concerns I raised were addressed. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 07:55, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Closed with a consensus to promote to Good Topic – Note: This nomination will likely be used as a test run for the FGTC bot, so it may take extra time – Aza24 (talk) 19:41, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Promotion complete. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:17, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]