Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/Featured log/July 2010

Good topic candidates: view - edit - history

Kentucky gubernatorial election, 1899

Kentucky gubernatorial election, 1899

6 articles

William Goebel

J. C. W. Beckham

William S. Taylor

John Y. Brown

Taylor v. Beckham

This good topic nominee chronicles the events and candidates associated with the Kentucky gubernatorial election of 1899. It includes FA William Goebel (the Democratic candidate), GA William S. Taylor (the Republican candidate), and John Y. Brown (1835–1904) (nominated by a dissident group of Democrats). It does not include Populist candidate John G. Blair, who garnered only 0.7% of the vote. Blair does not meet the notability criteria contained in WP:POLITICIAN, and an article about him would not survive WP:AFD.

Although Taylor won the election, the results were challenged and enough votes were invalidated to give the governorship to Goebel. However, Goebel was shot before being sworn in and died shortly after being sworn in. Consequently, Goebel's lieutenant governor, J. C. W. Beckham, is also included in the topic. Beckham won a court battle against Taylor to retain the governorship after Goebel's death. The article on outgoing governor William O'Connell Bradley is also GA if the community opines that he should be added to the topic, but he is only tangentially connected to the election. I believe these articles together represent Wikipedia's best work and fully cover the topic of the Kentucky gubernatorial election of 1899. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 17:00, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support Looks pretty complete to me; a great and unique Good Topic topic. —Goodtimber (walk/talk) 02:11, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
• Comment Very cool topic, one question though. Is the case Taylor v. Beckham notable enough to warrant an article? Staxringold _talk^contribs 15:40, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

• Definitely not at the national level, as the Supreme Court refused to hear it. At the state level, I've only found passing mentions to it, except for the official legal documents. I'm not sure any scholarly analysis has been done on it, but then again, I don't have access to many law-related resources. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 11:55, 14 June 2010 (UT
• Oppose The series is missing the article Taylor v. Beckham (as stated above) and currently does not even exist. Can you write an article on that and get it to GA status and try again? Afterall this case is a big part of the 1899 election....--White Shadows ^{stood on the edge} 20:25, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

• I think it might be a jump to assume that a) this case necessarily warrants its own article, b) enough material has been published about it in reliable sources to allow the article to achieve GA status, and c) its absence necessarily represents "obvious gap in the topic". We know the outcome of the case; we do not know for sure that it set any meaningful legal precedent, that any unique line of argumentation was used in the proceedings, that the legal counsel on either side was notable, etc. It may be sufficient to the topic and indeed to Wikipedia to have this passing mention of the case. I'll do some initial research, but I've never written an article about a law case before, so I'm not even sure what qualifies as encyclopedic content about such a thing. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 20:54, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

• You can always model it after Bush v. Gore. There are several former lawyers here that can help you write an article like this one. And remember one of the ruels for GTC, it must emcompass all of the related articles that deal with the subject; no cherry picking the best ones. I ran into the same issue at my nom for the German Type UB I submarines a few months ago. It failed and I was forced to go back and promote two B-class articles that were of the same class but owned by Austria-Hungary instead of Germany.--White Shadows ^{stood on the edge} 01:30, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

• Now that it's an article, will Taylor v. Beckham be brought to GAN soon? Let me know if/when you are so that loose end can be resolved. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 01:21, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

• It is presently awaiting review at GAC. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 11:52, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

• I didn't see it there; I went and put it in with your sig though, so this FTC is on hold until that is taken care of (hopefully soon, GAN's in poor shape though) Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 22:40, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

• Oops! I lied. I nominated it at WP:DYK, but forgot to list it at WP:GAC. I intended to and thought I did, however, so I appreciate your listing it for me. I also hope it gets a review soon, but you're right about GAC, unfortunately. Also note that Kentucky gubernatorial election, 1899 is currently up at FAC. If it is promoted, this becomes a FTC rather than a GTC, as it would have half of its articles featured. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 15:27, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support. Taylor v. Beckham is now a GA (I reviewed and passed it), and with that, it appears the topic is complete. Great work! Ucucha 15:48, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support and good luck with the FAC (note to closer that this will be a Good Topic if closed before Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Kentucky gubernatorial election, 1899/archive1 is successful, or if that FAC is unsuccessful, but a Featured Topic if that FAC passes). Bencherlite^Talk 16:04, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

• I will hold off on closing until the FAC concludes. It will then be passed as a GT or FT depending on the outcome. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:34, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support all of my concerns have been addressed. Good job!--White Shadows ^{There goes another day} 18:22, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support That was fast work on the case-article! Staxringold _talk^contribs 22:40, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support —Terrence and Phillip 10:01, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
• Note Kentucky gubernatorial election, 1899 has been promoted to FA: [1]. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:06, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

This will be officially closed with consensus to promote sometime Thursday UTC. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 02:16, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

• Close with consensus to promote. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 03:44, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Transandinomys

Transandinomys

Featured topic

3 articles

Transandinomys bolivaris

Transandinomys talamancae

This is a genus of two Central and South American species of rice rats. Both of the species are already FAs; the genus article just passed GA (thanks Sasata) and will go on to FAC soon. The articles have slightly different organizations, because there is much more known about T. talamancae than about T. bolivaris and therefore it made sense to use a few more sections. Ucucha 15:53, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support—comprehensive, well-defined topic. –Grondemar 16:18, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support - So, here it begins with the rats. Keep them coming. - DSachan (talk) 19:43, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support - DSachan's right, I suspect this will be just the beginning of the rats. ceranthor 12:31, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the supports. Oryzomys will hopefully follow soon; just waiting for List of parasites of the marsh rice rat to get through FLC. Ucucha 16:14, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support. Looks good. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:16, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

• Close with consensus to promote. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 02:37, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Major League Baseball Triple Crown

Major League Baseball Triple Crown

Featured topic

7 articles

List of batting average champions

List of home run champions

List of runs batted in champions

List of earned run average champions

List of strikeout champions

List of wins champions

• A fun little topic that KV5 and I have just finished up! (the bot is processing the Triple Crown closure now). KV5 • Talk and Staxringold _talk^contribs 00:46, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support This is such a clearly defined topic that this nom is a no brainer.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:58, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support—clearly-defined scope, comprehensive, all articles beautifully illustrated. My only suggestion would be for the pitching triple crown column to put the wins list above the ERA and strikeout lists, since as I recall when discussing the pitching triple crown wins tend to come up first. –Grondemar 21:31, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Can be done; they are just in alpha order right now. — KV5 • Talk • 21:33, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support Saw most of these go through FLC, solid work. Courcelles (talk) 07:40, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support—as the other commenters said, a well-defined and comprehensive topic. Ucucha 15:59, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

• Close with consensus to promote. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 02:40, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Crag martins

Crag martin

4 articles

Eurasian Crag Martin

Rock Martin

Dusky Crag Martin

This is a self-contained genus topic nominated for FT. The articles share a common layout and navbox section, and I think it's ready to run Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:50, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I've made a book, not sure how to add it to the FTbox Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:58, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I've moved it to Book:Crag martins, so it now appears here. Ucucha 08:03, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support—great work, appears to meet all criteria. I've made small tweaks in the sectioning of two of the articles for consistency. (I reviewed several of these articles at GAN and FAC.) Ucucha 08:05, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

• thanks for the book move and your support Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:22, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

• The range map of the Rock Martin looks like it has been drawn with a bit of a shaky pen, and I would not like to see it go out in the FT book like that. This map does not look like a finished product. Snowman (talk) 08:20, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

• The map was redrawn twice at FAC to correct geographical inaccuracies, even though it's not a requirement to have maps for FA. I don't understand your comment. Ranges of African species are poorly known and no bird distribution is sharply defined anyway, apart from island endemics. Are you suggesting that the map should should have neat lines or curves for its borders? If so, that doesn't reflect reality. Unless you can explain where the map is inaccurate, I've no intention of doing a fourth version. Since maps are not a GA or FT requirement, I could alternatively delete all the maps from the four articles. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:28, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

• The edges of the green range on the map for the Rock Martin are not consistent. Some of the edges are straight and some of the edges are shaky, and I think that this inconsistency makes it look like an unfinished product. Even if the presence of maps are not a requirement, I think that when maps are included they should be well done. Snowman (talk) 13:55, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

• OK, I'll wait for further comments, and remove the maps if your viewpoint is supported by others Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:44, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

• Removing the maps would be a bad idea; the article is better off with a slightly shaky map than with no map at all. The map might be better with some of the edges a little more straight, but at the resolution used in the article the shaky edges are hardly even visible. Ucucha 14:55, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

• As a set in a potential FT, I think that maps should have a consistent style and that shaky edges in one of the maps can be avoided. I would agree that removing the maps is not a viable option. Snowman (talk) 15:50, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

• I'm away for a few days, I'll deal with any further comments on my return Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:18, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

• Had a look at the range maps; I really cannot see what the problem is. Any range map is going to have irregular or 'shaky' lines. Maybe range maps should have fuzzy edges to indicate uncertainty or short-term fluctuations, but that is a more general question that this FTC assessment need not address. I feel that, as an FT, it's ready to roll. Maias (talk) 12:12, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks. My view of the map issue exactly Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:29, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

• The borders within the Rock Martin range map are not consistent - in some areas the borders are shaky and elsewhere in the same map they are not shaky. I do not think that this can be explained away by any of the explanations I have read in this review so far. Snowman (talk) 18:53, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

• The only straight bit I can see is along the Namibian border - presumably explained by lack of information regarding the distribution in western Botswana. We know that range maps can never be perfect; they depend on information available. They may appear inconsistent if such information varies in fineness of detail or reliability across the range. As I said, I fail to see a problem. If you have better information, please amend the map accordingly. Simply making the edge there 'shaky' to look like the other edges seems to be taking an aesthetic consideration to a ridiculous extreme. Maias (talk) 00:59, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

• My observations are on the presentation of the map, which looks does not look like a finished product. Snowman (talk) 12:33, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

• Can't we give this a rest? You keep making the same point over and over again. I've said that I'm not going to do the map a fourth time, you haven't identified any inaccuracy, unlike a constructive earlier reviewer, it's not a criterion even to have a map, and to redraw for artistic reasons is arguably WP:OR by synthesis. If you're not prepared to support, fine, just don't keep going over and over the same issue, you've made your point Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:10, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support - it fulfills the criteria. Maias (talk) 14:00, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:20, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support—contained topic, comprehensive, high-quality. I would like to see the lead article brought to WP:FAC as it doesn't appear far away from featured quality, but that isn't currently a requirement for featured topic status. –Grondemar 21:49, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I might try to get them all to FA eventually Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:19, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support Grondemar sums up my feelings. Want feedback on one of them to go next to FAC or have a bit of a breather...Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:51, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, as above with regard to more FAs Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:50, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

• Close with consensus to promote. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 19:18, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Everglades

Everglades

8 articles

Geography and ecology

Indigenous people of the region

Draining and development

Restoration

Everglades National Park

List of invasive species

Marjory Stoneman Douglas

Everglades. Because I have 666 pages on my watchlist and this will change that number. --Moni3 (talk) 17:22, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

meah. 18.74.6.84 (talk) 00:21, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

And now I lay me down to sleep, I pray the lord my soul to keep...yeah support. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:38, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I always found that prayer disturbing... Guettarda (talk) 01:39, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

A la Dawn of the Dead-type stuff...? Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:11, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

When I discovered it as a 9-year-old my take-home message was that you might die in your sleep. Guettarda (talk) 03:06, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

• Support. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 05:34, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose I notice that the Everglades page has navbox at the bottom with far more links than this topic. Several look like they should be here, including the state park, the marine sanctuary, and the two wildlife refuges. At the least, you can't include the Everglades National Park and not Biscayne National Park. —Goodtimber (walk/talk) 20:11, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Biscayne National Park is located in Biscayne Bay, not in the Everglades. It is tangentially related to the some of the same environmental issues that the Everglades also face.

Would the best solution to appease your opposition be to remove the other links? I disagree with including every article in Template:Everglades. The Everglades are fully and comprehensively covered with this suite of articles and you have not provided sufficient reason why an Everglades topic lacking a GA-class article on Fakahatchee Strand State Preserve, for example, is a disservice to readers seeking more information on the Everglades. I'm fine with your oppose. Either the topic is featured with these articles or it is not. --Moni3 (talk) 20:25, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Moni, you bring up very good points; I apologize for speaking before doing more research. I agree that the navbox includes far more articles than would be pertinent in a featured topic--some of them will never be able to be more than a stub, or only tangentially relate to the Everglades. I looked through the list of articles included and see that Ernest F. Coe is a large article with at least as much relevance as Marjory Stoneman Douglas. I feel that to include Douglas and not Coe is not really a balanced topic nomination. —Goodtimber (walk/talk) 22:28, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I guess I can see the next article to be buffed for GAN then....Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:08, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I've been looking through the set, trying to see if anything is missing. If Marjory Stoneman Douglas hadn't been there, I would never have given the omission a second thought. But with her, you start to wonder why Coe isn't. I can see her as being more important than him, certainly. But I'm not sure where you draw that line. Guettarda (talk) 00:39, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Ernest Coe is as large as it is because that's everything I could find about him. Unlike Douglas, Coe was not a journalist, did not have a lengthy writing career, did not write an autobiography--nor have any books written about him--and did not live into the late 20th century where media repositories saved relevant information about him. There are considerably fewer sources about Coe than Douglas. Does this mean then that this suite of articles could never be a featured topic as Coe's article would probably never pass GA? --Moni3 (talk) 11:47, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Why couldn't it? I have had shorter articles that passed as GAs, even as FAs. Ucucha 13:26, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Agree - it doesn't seem to short for a GA. In addition, FTs can have "reviewed" content that, for whatever reason, are ineligible for GA/FA. Guettarda (talk) 15:18, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Wait a minute, kids. We're discussing comprehensiveness here and it's not the length of Coe's article at issue, it's the fact that I couldn't find what F. as his middle initial stood for, or why his nickname was Tom, or what he did for the first 60 years of his life. I'd fail that shit in an instant in a GA nomination. His story is told as backstory to the establishment of Everglades National Park in the sources I could find. I don't think enough source material exists--that I could reasonably gain access to--to make this a worthy GA. He has letters and correspondence I believe in the Special Collections department at the University of Miami, but that's an issue with primary sourcing and still it would all concentrate on the period of his life after he moved to Florida. I don't have access to it anyway.

How is this process being decided here? It does not seem as if knowledge of sourcing and comprehensiveness of the Everglades as a topic are the primary considerations, but quick skims of a template and experience with past featured topics. This seems askew. --Moni3 (talk) 15:38, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I see what you mean about Coe. As for me, I am reading through the articles and trying to see if I can think of any gaps. And engaged in rambling conversation in the meantime. Overall I think it's pretty good, although I always take issue with "invasive" species, since it's a term that's so widely used, and so poorly defined. But yeah, the entire 'featured content' process is askew. Guettarda (talk) 15:59, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - for the same reason I (and 2 others) opposed last time, namely I feel that Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan should be included, or merged into Restoration of the Everglades. However I don't feel any individuals should be included. A good way to illustrate why is that none have {{main}} links in the lead article. While these individuals have no doubt done a lot for the Everglades, they are not subarticles of the lead. One other slight query I have - why a list of invasive species but no lists of native species? I guess the former are more notable than the latter? rst20xx (talk) 17:55, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

  Since it has been 10 years since CERP was passed and very little of it has been accomplished, I don't feel that the article is that integral right now to the Everglades. The Restoration of the Everglades article includes a discussion of CERP and its lack of implementation.

  Hmmm maybe you're right. The topic would obviously be improved for having the article added, but on reflection I don't think it is valid to oppose due to its exclusion - rst20xx (talk) 21:18, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

  I don't understand your comment about main links in the lead article.

  Let me put it another way. Marjory Stoneman Douglas is not a subarticle of Everglades, and her article is in no way summarised in the latter article. The articles that are summarised are those with a {{main}} link, and hence a topic on the Everglades would be best including those articles - rst20xx (talk) 21:18, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

  But her life was directly involved in promoting Everglades conservation and restoration. Can you explain why an FA about Douglas is inappropriate in a suite of articles about the Everglades? --Moni3ontheroad (talk) 20:55, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

  Topics are about their lead articles - and so they start from their lead article and are built outwards from there. The lead article mentions Douglas a number of times but is in no way about her. Whereas all the other articles have their own sections in the lead article. Hence there is a mismatch between her article and the others - rst20xx (talk) 01:08, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

  Invasive species in the Everglades, as noted in the lead of that list, are notable as South Florida is one of the most highly infested locations on the planet. Geography and ecology of the Everglades covers native flora and fauna. --Moni3 (talk) 18:07, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

  OK the Geography and ecology of the Everglades article discusses native species. But it doesn't list them, and so they are not covered in as much depth as List of invasive species in the Everglades.

  Over a thousand native plants and hundreds of vertebrate animals are considered to be native to the Everglades. The distinction is that several sources have identified specific invasive species in South Florida and the harm they have caused the natural environment. The damage they do requires explanation and the list itself is notable. No such list exists for native plants and animals other than, quite literally, a potentially unmanageable roster of plants and animals native to the Everglades. It is more efficient for readers and it mirrors source material more closely to discuss how native flora and fauna act within the natural ecology of the Everglades as explained in the Geography and ecology of the Everglades article than it would be to list them all out. --Moni3ontheroad (talk) 20:55, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

  OK, you've convinced me - rst20xx (talk) 01:08, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

  Sorry it took me so long to reply. Look forward to your responses - rst20xx (talk) 21:18, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

• Support - Don't mind if the Coe article is included or not. ceranthor 14:52, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
• Support - I think after a careful consideration of the articles and the scope of the topic, I think that this level of coverage is appropriate. Guettarda (talk) 05:04, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
• Support. I think this gives a good overview of the Everglades and will be a worthy topic to be featured. The layout of the box is weird, though; to me at least it looks like "Geography and ecology" and "Draining and development" are subarticles of "Indigenous people", and likewise "Everglades NP" and "Douglas" of "Restoration". Ucucha 12:54, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

  That's what I get for following the template. I'm not sure how to fix it. Anyone can feel free to tinker with it. --Moni3ontheroad (talk) 21:33, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

  Fixed. Can you pick an image for the topic, and also make it a book? Just look at any other book and copy that as a model - rst20xx (talk) 14:50, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

• Can I suggest this image for the topic picture? - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 15:46, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I chose another image, one I just took last week. I think I did the book thing right, but it's the first time I did it so I may have to fix something. --Moni3 (talk) 15:25, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Nice pic. Makes me want to get back down there again. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 16:42, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

• Support I really don't find anything missing in this topic. It may have scope for expansion, sure, but there's no obvious gap. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 02:51, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support Looks good to me. One query — all the articles have the word "Everglades" piped out, except the park itself. Why not pipe that too as "National Park" for consistency with the others? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:25, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't know. A couple other editors have come along to tweak the topic box. This is my first featured topic nomination. I don't know what is done normally. Tips? Suggestions? --Moni3 (talk) 12:53, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

"Everglades National Park" is a title - rst20xx (talk) 21:42, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support. I believe the topic meets the comprehensiveness requirements. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:00, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

• I'll leave a note on Goodtimber's talk page to see if his oppose still stands; he hasn't edited in a while though. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 18:38, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

• Close with consensus to promote. Rst's concern was addressed, and Goodtimber's concern was looked into by others with the decision that the topic was fine as is. I'd like to see Coe added myself, but nonetheless this topic will now be promoted. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:36, 6 July 2010 (UTC)