Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Good log/May 2021

Notes on a Conditional Form

I am nominating the album Notes on a Conditional Form by the 1975 to become a good topic. The album, its singles and its songs have all been brought to Good Article status over the past year. Thank you to all the dedicated Wikipedians who helped review the album and its songs: Bilorv (who also brought "The 1975" to GA status), K. Peake, SNUGGUMS and HĐ! Representing the final chapter in the band's Music For Cars era, the lengthy experimental album blends orchestral pieces with electronic instrumental tracks and traditionally-structured songs. This magpie approach polarised critics; some viewed it as the 1975's masterpiece, while others found it too unfocused. Despite the strong reactions, the album was included on numerous year-end lists.

Notes on a Conditional Form

11 articles

"The 1975"

"People"

"Frail State of Mind"

"The Birthday Party"

"Jesus Christ 2005 God Bless America"

"Me & You Together Song"

"If You're Too Shy (Let Me Know)"

"Guys"

"Nothing Revealed / Everything Denied"

"Tonight (I Wish I Was Your Boy)"

Contributor(s): Giacobbe and Bilorv

~~Comments~~ Support: There are a number of articles in this topic where chart positions need to be written out in the body since they are mentioned in the lead, also make sure refs are always in numerical order but in general, these articles are highly detailed with a heavy amount of work put in and I feel so proud to have been among the reviewers! --K. Peake 16:36, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Kyle Peake: I've gone through and added chart positions within the prose. Thank you for all your support! Giacobbe ^talk 18:17, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(CA)Giacobbe Thank you for getting to work on it, but you missed "The Birthday Party" and the refs need to be ordered as requested. --K. Peake 18:36, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Kyle Peake: Whoops, forgot about "The Birthday Party", good catch! Regarding the order of the refs, is that more personal preference or is there a GA criteria that I've missed? As far as I can tell from this, "Mistakes to avoid" includes: "Requiring that footnotes be listed in numeric order, if multiple citations are named after a sentence." Giacobbe ^talk 19:12, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Slightly involved) support: I got the opening track to GA and reviewed two of these GAs. I have quite a lot of subject knowledge in this area (an attempt to make "I'm a fan of the band" sound more impressive) and it does look like all of the notable songs from the album are included, and that all of the GAs are up to scratch. There should be a space before and after the slash in "Nothing Revealed / Everything Denied". — Bilorv (talk) 17:29, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Bilorv for the support and your contributions to the topic! Giacobbe ^talk 18:17, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 07:32, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - So I took a closer look at these articles, including the album and some sources draw my attention, and despite being well-written I have to point out some issues with a couple of said sources. The first is BrooklynVegan, which is across every article, but "Jesus Christ 2005 God Bless America" and "Guys", as the editor chief seems to have no experience as a journalist he has been loving the subject for a long time.Moreover, Cosmopolition has been considered a perennial source, per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Sources, so that needs to be changed. There is a source "Euphoria" that I'm not 100% ure about they have interviwed well known artists, however anyone can join their team...they work for free. Perhaps only the interviews would be reliable and not the reviews as seen on "Guys", "People", "Frail State of Mind", "The Birthday Party", "Jesus Christ 2005 God Bless America" and "Me & You Together Song". On the latter article, the Far Out Magazine needs to be removed (anyone can writer for them) and the Sputnik review is not acceptable, it was written by a member of the forum.

On the "The Birthday Party" there is uDiscover Music (affiliated with Universal Music), see this discussion click here, Our Culture Mag has raised some eyebrows regarding its editor. On "Frail State of Mind" the presence of Affinity Magazine is concernign as it is a magazine written by teenagers and its editor is also someone who is finishig highschool. Remove "talon" source since they claim "the majority of our staffers are either journalism or public relations majors", so any student can join them. Finnaly, on the album article, Yardbarker needs author, Far Out Magazine needs to be replaced. Soundazed and 411Mania are unreliable sources, with the latter being a blog. Banquet Records is a retalire I would't use for anything but release dates. Finally, I also advise you to change "the1975.com-> the1975 website" on the several instances it was used, on "If You're Too Shy (Let Me Know)" missing spin magazine as work on 30 best songs of 2020, and "RockCellar -> Rock Cellar" on "Tonight (I Wish I Was Your Boy)".

Thank you for the comments. I've removed Affinity, Talon and Our Culture, and fixed the links for YardBarker and Spin. Just going to be straight up and say I'm not going to remove BrooklynVegan, not sure where you got "loving the subject for a long time", but the organization's been around nearly 20 years, has a well documented editorial oversight team, and has been referenced by numerous other publications ranging from Rolling Stone, Hyperallergic, PopMatters, Under the Radar and a variety of others. Don't see any place where it wouldn't pass WP:RS. For Far Out, I think you might be mistaking the internship application page for meaning "anyone can write for them". Additionally, both Soundazed and Euphoria Magazine have editorial oversight and pass WP:RS. In terms of uDiscover, I read the discussion when getting "The Birthday Party" passed, and saw the consensus being "use sparingly". As its use in the aforementioned article is to provide background on the making of the music video—and not commentary—I believe it follows this consensus. Giacobbe ^talk 22:21, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@(CA)Giacobbe: Regarding Udiscover music, I believe you are right it's only describing how they created the music video. On BrooklynVegan, having a document team its the first step, the second is if that team has any journalistic backgroud. Its a blog, secondly its editors (Andrew Sacher and Bill Pearis) have only worked for the blog. Can you provide those references? I can't seem to find them online and if it turns out to be true I won't fight you on that. "Far Out Magazine", in their job aplication wheter is internehip or not they don't make a reference to any journalist background. What other proves do you want? On Euphoria [1], so yes anyone can write for them, simply apply, you can even choose what you want to write about. Soundazed editoral team is compressed only lists their founder on the website Matt Torres who has a bacherol's degree on political science according to his linkdln profile, that's not the same as journalism. There are still issues with 411Mania and Banquet Records. I will strike out stuff as we progress. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 00:04, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point me to where in WP:RS it says a degree in journalism is required for this step? Giacobbe ^talk 00:55, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@(CA)Giacobbe:It doesn't say, but we need some sort of background to claim if a source is or not reliable. Consider this when figuring out whether or not a source is reliable/usable Wikipedia:

1) Is there an editorial staff?
2) Is there editorial policy and editorial oversight?
3) Are the editors writers with actual credentials? Do they have experience writing for other reliable publications? College degrees in relevant areas? Or does their expertise revolve around a fan or interest in the subject?

Let's go trougought each source

411mania: "Our writers and contributors are not paid staff members or employees, they are independent bloggers." See 1

While the site does not have paid staff members, its articles are written by independent journalists. Editorial oversight is conducted by the site owner and its Head Site Editor, Jeremy Thomas, who has written for other publications such as The Hollywood Reporter. The article itself was written by David Hayter, a freelance journalist who attended the London School of Journalism and has previously written for Guitar Planet, the Evening Standard, Sony Music Entertainment, and worked at The Guardian where he analyzed and reviewed singles and trends alongside award-winning journalist Alexis Petridis. Giacobbe ^talk 14:00, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mucrack is not reliable, if you find the article(s) he wrote I would like to see it. I dugged deeper into David Hayter, The guardian says this Every week we invite a reader to share with us some of the songs they've been listening to recently, reader is diferent from journalist. Sony Music? You mean a label, really? Doesn't get more bias than that. Lindkin is not reliable, good for finding stuff (like a seach engine) you need to back that stuff up with reliable sources, in this case the articles.

Banquet Records: Retailer like I have mentioned, "Banquet is an independent record shop in Kingston, just on the outskirts of London. We're a real record shop run by real people. Our mail order is a big part of what we do, as we send out thousands of mail order packages a month. But we are and always will be, a real record shop on the High Street, or in our case, Eden Street. " See 2

Banquet Records, described by Music Week as a part of Kingston's musical legacy, has an important place among the indie music scene in the UK (which the 1975 are themselves a part of). The magazine wrote an op-ed calling it “a thriving part of the Kingston community”. In their op-ed about the store, Huck said: "Sometimes a shop is not really a shop. Sometimes a shop is the heart of a local scene, without which an entire subculture would be lost." Here is The Guardian's dedicated article about the record shop, in which they wrote: "For independent record shops, each passing week is like the Grand National for horses: some will shit themselves, a few will die, and most will have their arses whipped. But Banquet Records in Kingston upon Thames needs its nosebag testing for amphetamines." The Line of Best Fit even wrote an entire article about how the shop was temporarily closing, helping to demonstrate its importance. Recognizing the unique importance of Banquet Records and its impact on the UK indie music scene, Metacritic—which Wikipedia near-unanimously relies upon to determine critical consensus of albums—feels it's appropriate to include "prominent music stores, websites, and publications" on their year-end lists, and has included Banquet Records since 2016 (2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, and best of the decade). Banquet's inclusion in the album article is their ranking of the year's best records. In terms of WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, given Banquet's notoriety—as a record store and pillar of the UK indie music scene—I believe its inclusion is warranted in an article about a record from a UK indie music act. Giacobbe ^talk 14:00, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@(CA)Giacobbe:So Banquet records its a store, a retalier...like amazon, ebay and so on...that just shows its a store. Their staff are not critics, journalists and so on, just people who like music. You have a lot of lists from other publications more respectable. All those sources you pointed out shows it is a music store like many others. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 14:11, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see Metacritic including reviews from Amazon, Ebay, and so on, unless I've missed something? Yet they do for Banquet. Clearly, their opinion holds importance. Giacobbe ^talk 14:55, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BrooklynVegan: Thre is editoral staff, the editors and contributers have only worked for said magazine and their founder, Dave is quite hard to find online. You have yet to provide their mentions on Rolling Stone, Pop Matters and others.

Their editoral staff? You mean and now runs mailorder and https://www.banquetrecords.com/banquet-staff/joe/joeconnor Joe works in mail order and is our in-house sound engineer]], among others. Sorry but they don't come across as critics of any sort. They work in the shop and they enjoy music, thats it. If you work at a clothing store doesn't make you a critic of clothing. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 11:43, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@MarioSoulTruthFan: Apologies for the delay, I'm in the midst of finals. Anyways, let’s start with BrooklynVegan! Metacritic has included BrooklynVegan on their year-end list since 2018 (2019, 2020, and best of the decade). Here is Dazed including BrooklynVegan among the likes of Stereogum and The A.V. Club while referencing a story they reported on, here is Refinery29 comparing BrooklynVegan to Pitchfork while calling it “the best resource for local concerts, as well as new music in general”, and another one by Stereogum calling it the best music blog (other than itself), while also referencing the site here and here and here and here, here, here, here (there are many more, but I feel like you get the jest). In addition to calling them "the de facto media hub for the indie scene", Rolling Stone references their reporting here, and then they do it again, and again and again and again and again and again and again. I could keep going (for good measure, here’s some from Billboard: here, here, and here; a couple from Under the Radar here, here, and here; and I'll throw in some from The New York Times here, here, and here) but I feel like I've made my point. Now, let's discuss the writer of the BV articles used in the topic (I believe it's just Andrew Sacher, but correct me if I’m mistaken). After graduating from the State University of New York with a degree in Arts Management and Literature (seems like a pretty good qualification to discuss music and the arts as a career), he's had 10 years of experience working as a music editor for BV and has been included by Uproxx as part of their Critics' Choice Poll since 2018. You might not be finding much information about Dave Levine, since according to a New York article about him, the man is reluctant to even disclose his last name. Wouldn't expect to find out much about a man that doesn't like the spotlight. Giacobbe ^talk 22:08, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@(CA)Giacobbe: Its fine, focus on your finals and good luck with those. BrooklynVegan seems fine. Honestly I'm going to try to add it to the reliable sources using the articles you mentioned, if that's ok with you. There is stil 411 mania, Soundazed and Banquet Records issues to address. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 10:07, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@MarioSoulTruthFan: Thank you for the encouragement! As for adding BV to the reliable sources, I have no problem with you using this! Giacobbe ^talk 14:00, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Far Out Magazine: I digged into the profiles of most of thei staff and they seem to have written for either other magazines or have a degree on journalism. They seem to be a reliable source.
Euphoria: I took a closer look at the writers on the website and they have either written for other magazies such as coup de main, the line of the best fit, past magazine...and one of them is taking a degree on litterature as of right now, as well as degrees in music journalism. So it is a pass, using the creteria above.
Soundazed: Its founder and editor Matt Torres is responsible for most articles on the website. He has never written for other publications, a bacherol's degree on political science according to his linkdln profile so it is not on the same page as a relevant area for covering music topics. He also has a second job, so the editor and founder doesn't even focus his profession on writing or editing, I don't think this is a well-represented organization. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 11:48, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Removed. Giacobbe ^talk 14:00, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good job! MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 14:27, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Barricade magazine seems fine, its director and founder has some background on music journalism and has written for paper magazine. Sorry if this can come across as annoying, but it is for the best, you can replace the unreliable sources per others that have the same information. Let me know once you have addressed this issues. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 18:37, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- What exactly do you mean by "Cosmopolition has been considered a perennial source ... so that needs to be changed"? "Perennial" just means "frequently occurring". There is consensus that the source's reliability is context-dependent, but it seems to me that there are no reasonable doubts that (a) any interviews Cosmopolitan does are genuine, not fabricated; and that (b) the opinions of its music reviewers are significant. So I wouldn't change any uses of the source on this music-based topic (unless it's being used as the only source for controversial facts somewhere). — Bilorv (talk) 18:43, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is not an interview, anyway disgard the comment about cospomolitan...address everything else. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 18:54, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I added a link to the first occurrence of "Tonight (I Wish I Was Your Boy)" in the main article. It's got the album and all the singles and other notable tracks at GA, and there doesn't appear to be a tour, video, or other related topic that ought to be here, and it's all joined by the band's navbox and various supercategories. Seems to tick all the boxes! -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 20:52, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bryanrutherford0: Thank you for the support! I appreciate you linking the song Giacobbe ^talk 21:07, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support looks complete to me with the parent album and each song article all being GA-level. A job very well done, and I must tip my hat to you for your dedicated efforts on the band's pages (including those out of this topic scope)! SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 23:57, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the continued support, and your review of "Jesus Christ 2005...", SNUGGUMS! Giacobbe ^talk 15:11, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support - It is great to see stellar-quality music content again, in a time where the bar has been lowered so much. A really great, well-researched set of connected articles.--N Ø 15:04, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the kind words and show of support, MaranoFan! Giacobbe ^talk 15:12, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another Comment I also noticed that WP:Sample is not respected in some instances. On "Tonight (I Wish I Was Your Boy)" the lenght is 26 seconds for a song that has 4:07 of lenght, the maximum allowed is 24 seconds. On the article "Notes on a Conditional Form", the sample of "What Should I Say" should have a maximum of 24 seconds, on the same article the sample of "Roadkill" should have a maximum of 17 seconds. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 21:08, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Tonight (I Wish I Was Your Boy)" has a length of 247 seconds, 10% of which equates to 24.7 seconds (automatically rounds to 25), so I'll trim off accordingly.
"What Should I Say" has a length of 246 seconds, 10% of which equates to 24.6 seconds (automatically rounds to 25), so I'll trim off accordingly.
"Roadkill" has a length of 175 seconds, 10% of which equates to 17.5 seconds (automatically rounds to 18), so there's no need to change. Giacobbe ^talk 18:07, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, it's better to round down because that won't exceed 10% of a song's duration. One should avoid having overly long samples whenever possible. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 18:35, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The sample does not exceed 10% of the duration. 17.5 seconds is the allowable sample, which it is. Should someone download it for any reason, that is what they would see. Could clarify that in its fair use rationale, though. Giacobbe ^talk 20:06, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(CA)Giacobbe I do agree with SNUGGUMS on this one, better not to exceed, even if its 0.5 seconds. Let me know once you address this issue and the ones above regarding the websites, there are still two concerning. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 19:40, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think the point is that it's not exceeding 10% by 0.5 seconds—the file is 17.5 seconds (10% dead on) but this is displayed within our internal pages as "18 seconds" (as that's the correct rounding to the nearest integer). But the audio itself (which is what the criterion applies to) is not more than 10% of the song length. — Bilorv (talk) 19:48, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Bilorv, that is what I was trying to express. Giacobbe ^talk 20:46, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(CA)Giacobbe Have you addressed the samples reduction and the sources (411 mania and Banquet Records)? MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 09:05, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have. Giacobbe ^talk 11:03, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Since you seem to have address all my concerns. Nicely done. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 07:32, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, MarioSoulTruthFan, for the support! Giacobbe ^talk 15:29, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Closed with a consensus to promote to Good Topic - GamerPro64 00:35, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

San Marino in the Eurovision Song Contest

San Marino debuted at the Eurovision Song Contest in 2008 and has since then participated 10 times, only missing the 2009 and 2010 contests. During this time period, they have placed last and qualified for the grand final twice.

San Marino in the Eurovision Song Contest

12 articles

2008

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Contributor(s): Grk1011

I am nominating this group of articles to become a Good Topic because the main article and its yearly articles have all recently become Good Articles. The article for 2021 is future-class, but my plan would be to add that one later through the appropriate process. This is my first nomination for a GT! --Grk1011 (talk) 14:58, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support: these articles definitely look good, all but one of which I had the pleasure of reviewing! I would recommend adding an accompanying image for this GT though. --K. Peake 16:27, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've now added a photo. Grk1011 (talk) 17:35, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Neat addition there, especially with them holding up the national flag! --K. Peake 17:49, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~ Support: It's odd that the main article doesn't link to most of the others; this really ought to be fixed before it's nominated as a topic. All the articles are fine, and they share a navbox and category. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 17:29, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting point. Do you have a suggestion of where such links could be located within the article? Grk1011 (talk) 17:35, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I would suggest adding the links in areas of prose such as "for the first time in 2008," and "The 2017 entry marked". --K. Peake 17:49, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've now added piped wikilinks to each year. Grk1011 (talk) 13:57, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's better, though the links could come into the text more naturally. Changing to support. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 15:11, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support - All articles are in great shape so fantastic job getting them all to GA-status. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 12:21, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support meets the criteria with no obvious gaps, well-defined topical scope, under a shared template/category. Good job. Will eventually need to add 2021 article (assuming it gets made) to maintain the topic criteria. Spy-cicle💥 ^Talk? 04:18, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Closed with a consensus to promote to Good Topic - Aza24 (talk) 01:19, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Supplementary nominations

Presidents of Georgetown University

Georgetown University is a private Jesuit research university located in Washington, D.C. that was founded in 1789. The president of the university is its chief executive officer and, until the 1960s, was also the rector of the university's Jesuit community. The president is charged with control over the "business affairs and properties" of the university, and appoints the vice presidents and administrators. To date, nearly all of the presidents have been Jesuits.

Presidents of Georgetown University

42 articles

Robert Plunkett

Robert Molyneux

Louis William Valentine DuBourg

Leonard Neale

Francis Neale

William Matthews

Giovanni Antonio Grassi

Benedict Joseph Fenwick

Anthony Kohlmann

Enoch Fenwick

Stephen Larigaudelle Dubuisson

Contributor(s): Ergo Sum

Every article is either a good article or featured article, and the lead article is a featured list. The topic is comprehensive, as it includes every person who was been a president of Georgetown University. --Ergo Sum 01:52, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support I have to throw in my strong support here, this has truly been an incredible project to watch, and deserves this recognition.-- Patrick, _oѺ^∞ 02:09, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support recognition for this extensive body of high-quality (even exceptional) articles. Armadillo pteryx 02:16, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Looks like the full list, all at GA of FA, with a navbox and category to link them all. Well done! -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 12:22, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great achievement full of reliable sources. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 12:46, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great that there is over 40 FA or GA class articles in this topic; such a level of extensiveness is amazing to see! --K. Peake 19:25, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Panini!^🥪 11:53, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I can only imagine how much work it must've taken to get these all to this point. Congrats! {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:58, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support meets the criteria with no obvious gaps, well-defined topical scope, under a shared template/category. Huge congrats on this amazing work and superb topic, cannot imagine the amount of time that went into this. Regards Spy-cicle💥 ^Talk? 04:11, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks good! KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 21:07, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per all above. Had the opportunity to review one of the GAs on the list, just one of many great articles. Great deal of care and work has been invested in this project with remarkable attention to detail. Total support without reservation. Thank you for your efforts and contributions! Babegriev (talk) 03:02, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm a bit bemused as to why this is still sitting here not promoted after five weeks of unanimous support! The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 16:49, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Closed with a consensus to promote to Good Topic - Aza24 (talk) 23:24, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

EFL Championship play-offs

The English Football League Championship play-offs are a series of play-off matches contested by the association football teams finishing from third to sixth in the EFL Championship table and are part of the English Football League play-offs. As of 2021^[update], the play-offs comprise two semi-finals, where the team finishing third plays the team finishing sixth, and the team finishing fourth plays the team finishing fifth, each conducted as a two-legged tie. The winners of the semi-finals progress to the final which is contested at Wembley Stadium. The Championship play-off final is considered the most valuable single football match in the world as a result of the increase in revenue to the winning club from sponsorship and media agreements.

EFL Championship play-offs

35 articles

1987 Football League Second Division play-off Final

1988 Football League Second Division play-off Final

1989 Football League Second Division play-off Final

1990 Football League Second Division play-off Final

1991 Football League Second Division play-off Final

1992 Football League Second Division play-off Final

1993 Football League First Division play-off Final

1994 Football League First Division play-off Final

1995 Football League First Division play-off Final

1996 Football League First Division play-off Final

1997 Football League First Division play-off Final

1998 Football League First Division play-off Final

1999 Football League First Division play-off Final

2000 Football League First Division play-off Final

2001 Football League First Division play-off Final

2002 Football League First Division play-off Final

2003 Football League First Division play-off Final

2004 Football League First Division play-off Final

2005 Football League Championship play-off Final

2006 Football League Championship play-off Final

2007 Football League Championship play-off Final

2008 Football League Championship play-off Final

2009 Football League Championship play-off Final

2010 Football League Championship play-off Final

2011 Football League Championship play-off Final

2012 Football League Championship play-off Final

2013 Football League Championship play-off Final

2014 Football League Championship play-off Final

2015 Football League Championship play-off Final

2016 Football League Championship play-off Final

2017 EFL Championship play-off Final

2018 EFL Championship play-off Final

2019 EFL Championship play-off Final

2020 EFL Championship play-off Final

Contributor(s): The Rambling Man

A complete and comprehensive history of the second tier play-off finals. I'm not saying this is my magnum opus (that'll be the Boat Race topic incoming this year), but this is more than a year's worth of effort so I hope it meets with the approval of the community. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 18:55, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. This is astonishing. What a lot of work. One question for now... I don't suppose there's any "free use image to accompany and represent the topic, preferably a featured picture if at all possible"? Pretty sure you considered it. As the criteria make clear, this isn't an essential, so it's not a pass/fail issue by any means. --Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 19:01, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well there are half a dozen in the main article which could be used (even one of "good old Norwich"'s visit), but I felt to pick one out was to cherry pick. Perhaps a shot of Wembley? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 19:02, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wembley isn't a bad shout. --Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 21:08, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support - fantastic work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:17, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support meets the criteria and is an excellent body of work. NapHit (talk) 10:36, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support ~~Comments~~ I am uncertain about the reliability of tabloid newspapers the Sunday World and the Birmingham Mail due to them being populist, but I don't know lots about them so if you can make a proper case, my opinion may be shifted. For the majority, the content is up to proper quality especially with numerous FAs and I always feel amazed at seeing these GTs with over 30 articles! --K. Peake 20:52, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The reviewers at GAN had no issue with those publications, and in general they are never used to cite anything controversial. If the sources are black-listed by Wikipedia, please do let me know. Thanks for your comments. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:56, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's they're sources being used totally appropraitely. --Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 21:08, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Rambling Man and Dweller, there is nothing on these sources at WP:RSP so that is why I admitted to not having too much knowledge of them. After the explanations above, I don't take issue with the usage of them anymore. However, the 2013 Football League Championship play-off Final article should have the GA icon listed instead of the DYK one per this being a GT. --K. Peake 08:37, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It seemed okay until you signed your name in the template. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 08:44, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Rambling Man Very sorry about that, I know this topic isn't mine at all and that must've been a misclick. --K. Peake 12:51, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Don't give it a moment's thought. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 13:01, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Of course not, I'll give thought to the contributions I made for improvement here though! --K. Peake 15:25, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support A huge and impressive piece of work. Congratulations. --Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 21:08, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support What a great project. Impressive work. Congrats. Ergo Sum 17:36, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support. There don't appear to be any relevant pages missing, and it's a coherent topic. Well done that man. — Amakuru (talk) 06:45, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Magnificent project MWright96 (talk) 12:30, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great job! KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 21:02, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Question @FGTC coordinators: just wondering how long nominations need to remain open these days? No rush, just curious. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 13:57, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey TRM—I've had my eye on this but have been delaying because it takes quite a bit of time to promote a big one like this (we have update every talk page manually, for example). That being said, I should have time to promote it tomorrow, unless Sturm or Gamer beat me to it. Aza24 (talk) 03:42, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Aza24 Ok, no worries, thanks for letting me know. You think this is a big topic, just wait until I nominate the Boat Race topic....!! The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 06:44, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Closed with a consensus to promote to Good Topic - Aza24 (talk) 02:58, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Supplementary nominations

Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/EFL Championship play-offs/addition1