Support Comment On the refs citing Taste of Country and Townsquare Media, you should only cite one for the correct formatting. Elsewise, this is a hard worked and worthy addition to the FT! K. Peake10:40, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would suggest merging the second and third paras of the lead since they are both short and the theme is connected but besides this, the GA is well-worked, straightforward addition and does not need to be an FA with enough others in the topic already! --K. Peake11:24, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This topic is already featured. It is being re-nominated to add additional items. See Wikipedia talk:Featured topics/The Last of Us for discussions of the topic's previous nominations. The additional items are:
This topic is already featured. It is being re-nominated to add additional items. See Wikipedia talk:Featured topics/EFL League One play-offs for discussions of the topic's previous nominations. The additional items are:
This topic is already featured. It is being re-nominated to add additional items. See Wikipedia talk:Featured topics/Inna albums for discussions of the topic's previous nominations. The additional items are:
This topic is already featured. It is being re-nominated to add additional items. See Wikipedia talk:Featured topics/EFL League Two play-offs for discussions of the topic's previous nominations. The additional items are:
Billboard magazine has published charts ranking the top-performing country music songs in the United States since 1944. The first country chart was published under the title Most Played Juke Box Folk Records in the issue of the magazine dated January 8, 1944, and tracked the songs most played in the nation's jukeboxes. Billboard added a second chart in 1947 based on retail sales, and a third in 1949 based on radio airplay. The jukebox chart was discontinued in 1957, and the following year, the remaining two charts were dropped and replaced with a chart, initially entitled Hot C&W Sides, which combined sales and airplay data into one overall ranking. This chart was renamed Hot Country Singles in 1962, Hot Country Singles and Tracks in 1990, and Hot Country Songs in 2005. In 1990, its methodology changed to use only airplay data from country music radio stations. In 2012, this changed again to use data from stations of all formats as well as sales and streaming information. At the same time, a new Country Airplay chart was introduced, which continued the former methodology of tracking plays on country stations only.
This topic is already featured. It is being re-nominated to add additional items. See Wikipedia talk:Featured topics/Paper Mario for discussions of the topic's previous nominations. The additional items are:
Satisfies WP:GT? and all the same reasons of the last nomination. However, I've gone out of my way to do this in retaliation of Bryanrutherford0: "...this proposal is missing Mario & Luigi: Paper Jam. It's another game in Category:Paper Mario, and it seems odd to leave it out here, though I get that it's a "crossover" spin-off and not exactly part of the series proper. It'd be an easy support with the last game included, but I'm not sure I can support without." I just thought I'd stop by and do a "well, take that" sort of thing, you know? I updated the text intro as well. --Panini!•🥪03:02, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support Panini has put hours and hours of effort into these articles allowing them to be perfect. I see absolutely no reason to not deny this simple addition. This is an incredible accomplishment and I am proud to have reviewed a part of it myself. GG. PerryPerryDTalk To Me15:04, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comments the release dates should be written out and sourced in the body to avoid using references in the infobox, also fix the overusage of "it" in the reception part of the lead. Outside of these two issues, solid work on this article and it is definitely an appropriate addition to the topic! --K. Peake08:48, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This topic is already featured. It is being re-nominated to add additional items. See Wikipedia talk:Featured topics/Kanye West studio albums for discussions of the topic's previous nominations. The additional items are:
This topic's retention period was nearly a month ago, but I nominated Donda way back in October for GA status with this in mind. The album did take a while to get picked up, though it has passed now after a smooth review! Update since I made this additional nomination, West released his eleventh studio album Donda 2 that I brought to GA status and would also like to add to the topic, though it would be appropriate to know if everyone maintains their support votes now. --K. Peake08:41, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Realmaxxver I understand that you are making this point since it's the only new article, but shouldn't the image for the supplementary nomination be the same as the one for the actual topic? --K. Peake10:30, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comments Unsure about Rap Mais reliability, it looks like a blog. The Source needs at least one wikilink. Page six → People magazine, very different. Remove Appleinsider, on their "about us" page: "Our editorial staff has wide latitude to review and report on what they want, how they want." Henceforth, there is no editorial review. I'm unsure about the reliability of Distractify as it is co-founded by a Youtuber, no editorial staff. When translated I can't be sure regarding Buro 24/7, I would stay away from these. Maybe the album notes can replace this source easily? Doubts regarding "Southpawer" source, but the same information can be found on a Billboard article, Hot New Hip Hop.MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 13:09, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I removed or replaced any of the questionable sources, also I must have missed The Source due to the large amount of refs so have wikilinked now and it is uncertain who added Page Six for the People ref because I remember that being the first from the publication and displaying as such, so I changed it back to citing People. --K. Peake14:23, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Director comment - Ok so this probably should have been closed sooner but with Donda 2 being a Good Article now, how about we make things easier and just add that to the topic after this review is closed? Is that cool with people here? GamerPro6404:06, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
GamerPro64 I have been going through a thought process that invokes this, being unsure whether to add the album to this nom or create a second supp nom when Donda has been added, as we don't know if the supporters here would vote the same way for Donda 2. Messages could be posted on their talk pages though and now that both options are on the table, which do you think is most appropriate? --K. Peake07:49, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would vote against it, not putting into consideration any of your work, Kyle, which I know is outstanding. However, I believe it is quite soon? The album was not even released a month ago, shouldn't I breathe and gather more info? The full credits are not even out. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 22:29, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the kind comments MarioSoulTruthFan, but I would like to explain that the album is a Stem Player exclusive, so will not be able to chart as Billboard even acknowledged. Also, credits may take a while to be publicly available, if ever. K. Peake08:08, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Kyle Peake I understand that now. It caused massive pirating since there is an evident lack of support, charts, and so on. Then support, just afraid it might change in the middle of the race. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 22:44, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus to approve supplemental nomination - Seems to be enough consensus to get both Dondas on the topic. We can finally close this nom. GamerPro6421:53, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Line 1 (Sound Transit) stations (1st supplementary nomination)
Three new stations on this line have opened and they have already passed their GANs. After some appropriate updates and restructuring, I feel they're ready to be included in the topic. SounderBruce07:02, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comments either expand the location section of Northgate station or merge it with another section due to the small size, while I have my doubts regarding the reliability of SDOT Blog on Roosevelt station and Huffington Post contributor on Washington University station is unreliable per WP:RSP. The source Cheasty Greenspace on Columbia city station appears to be a blog-style one, merge the last para of history for Othello station with the above one, plus neither SeaTac/Airport station nor Angle Lake station should have refs for the opening dates in the infoboxes and the usage of SeaTac Blog on the latter seems unreliable. Despite these issues, the topic itself is of my interest; well done on putting such dedicated work into a collection of stations within an area! --K. Peake09:27, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The sources used are still appropriate for content at the GA level, especially government blogs (such as SDOT Blog) and prominent local blogs (SeaTac Blog, CHS, WSB) that get republished into the newspaper of record (The Seattle Times). The Huffington Post piece was written by an architecture critic for a normal newspaper, so I don't see it being problematic; it certainly did not come up as problematic in the FAC. These suggestions are far beyond what is required for a GTC, as it should have been brought up in the individual GANs. SounderBruce04:12, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't think trying to improve articles is ever inappropriate for really any venue on Wikipedia, and I have no doubt the suggestions came in good faith. Your rationales re sourcing seem reasonable, and I wonder if Kyle Peake would agree with them. Aza24 (talk) 05:29, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Things sometimes don't come up in a GAR or FTC because not everything is always spotted in those processes, also I have struck out my comments about the sources because your explanations justify their reliability and you should have posted this earlier to address me. However, what I wrote about the small sizes of the location section and the final part of the history section for two respective articles still stands, as does the problem with refs in infoboxes. --K. Peake08:25, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All fixed, but I'm still of the opinion that these "issues" are incredibly minor, and moreover changes to articles in the existing GT should not affect the supplementary nomination. SounderBruce04:50, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This topic is already featured. It is being re-nominated to add additional items. See Wikipedia talk:Featured topics/Tuvalu at the Olympics for discussions of the topic's previous nominations. The additional items are:
Tuvalu's competed at the Olympics four times now, and since I've gotten the latest occasion up to GA, here's this supplementary nom. All the articles in this topic are GA. AryKun (talk) 02:33, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comment you should not be using a ref in the lead for the info about the event getting postponed, as that can be written out and sourced in background. It is ironic for me to be the first to comment since I was the one who nominated the topic for removal before this was even a GAN and outside of this issue, good job on this article less than six months after the event; it is well-written and covered by reliable sources. --K. Peake08:23, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]