Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/Grade I listed buildings in Runcorn

Grade I listed buildings in Runcorn
I consider that the articles satisfy the criteria for a Good Topic. They cover all the listed buildings in the town of Runcorn. Two of these are listed Grade I and both are GAs. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:21, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I reformated your nomination into a box and picked an image for now; hope you don't mind. I would have thought that the list should be the lead, not Runcorn (which I don't think should be in the topic, as it's outside its scope).  I'm also wondering whether there's "cherry-picking" here: I know that the two articles are the two Grade I buildings (top grade of buildings of special architectural, historical or cultural significance, for non-UK editors), but many of the other 57 listed buildings mentioned in the list have articles that aren't included here.  Perhaps the title of the topic should be "Grade I listed buildings in Runcorn" - or is that incompatible with the much wider scope of the list? BencherliteTalk 10:55, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for fixing the template, and the image - which is fine. This is my first nomination for a GT so perhaps I have not "got" the criteria yet.  I included Runcorn to give some context to the topic, but I take your point.  The cherries picked themselves, as it were.  There are only two Grade I listed buildings in the town and none of the articles on the other buildings come anywhere near GA (yet).  Anyway I would be happy with your suggestion to leave Runcorn out, make the list the lead, and change the title to the above. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 13:32, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose the topic as listed is clearly incomplete. Nergaal (talk) 14:47, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Re: while the overall topic looks much better now, I still oppose because to me this seems a somewhat forced topic and also one that has an extremely awkward name. Nergaal (talk) 05:03, 25 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment - IMO Bencherlite is right on all counts. Criteria 1.b) says that "The articles have a clear similarity with each other under a well-defined topical scope." This topic firstly runs into some trouble here in that the scope of the lead article (Runcorn) does not match the scope of the topic (Listed buildings in Runcorn). Changing the lead article to List of listed buildings in Runcorn (and removing Runcorn entirely) would alleviate this problem, but then the topic would secondly run afoul of criteria 1.d), "A topic must not cherry pick only the best articles to become featured together." Sure, the grade 1 listed buildings are the most important of the listed buildings, but they are only 2 out of 59, and the scope of the topic as it stands is purportedly all the listed buildings. Therefore, the topic should include all the listed buildings that merit articles (which I suspect would be all of them?). Again, following Bencherlite's comment, one possible way round this problem would be to change the scope of the topic to "Grade I listed buildings in Runcorn". If you also changed the lead article to List of listed buildings in Runcorn, then this would somewhat fit - the scope of the lead article would still be much bigger than the scope of the topic, but doing this kind of scope-narrowing on lists is not unprecedented - look at the "Albums" "topics, for example Powderfinger albums, which has a similar scope narrowing from its lead, Powderfinger discography, an article which obviously also covers singles, EPs, etc., to just covering the albums for the topic. If you make these changes I think I would probably stay neutral the topic, because to narrow down to just the 2 grade I listed buildings seems a larger and more arbitrary narrowing than to narrow down to just albums. But if you did otherwise I'm afraid I'd definitely oppose here - rst20xx (talk) 14:55, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * PS I lived in Lymm til I was 3 years old ;) rst20xx (talk) 15:01, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I would will support a topic as outlined by Bencherlite and Rst20xx. I think Grade one listing is qualitatively different enough to merit topics containing only those rather than all graded buildings in an area. I don't think the number of grade-1 buildings is a problem, as an album topic of only 2 albums would pass, and any such listed building topic has to be split somehow due to the number of articles (which some discographies cannot claim).YobMod 15:06, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks folks for your comments and advice. I have changed the title and deleted Runcorn (but how do you get rid of that "Column3" thing?). Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:57, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It's gone, just by leaving it as a blank parameter. BencherliteTalk 20:27, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Support as amended. Yobmod makes a good point (in fact, more than one): Grade I buildings are a natural and non-arbitrary subset of listed buildings, and a list plus two articles is enough to qualify for a topic. It is comparable to limiting a discography topic to albums only, so there is precedent for this restriction of the topic to an appropriate sub-set of the lead article/list. Looking at the list, many of the lower-level listed buildings are never going to get their own article anyway, let alone one of GA status (e.g "Walls, piers and railings, St Paul's Health Centre, High Street"(!)). BencherliteTalk 20:27, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * (You sure? See current GANs Entranceways at Main Street at Lamarck Drive and Smallwood Drive and Entranceway at Main Street at Roycroft Boulevard, both of which are NRHPs. Similarly I suspect all graded buildings (objects?) might be in with a shot! They must have some history to them in order to get listed! For example, the walls, piers and railings "originally formed the entrance to a Methodist chapel" so I suspect they would actually be lumped together in an article about that chapel! rst20xx (talk) 21:01, 22 April 2009 (UTC))
 * Support - Actually I will support, I think Yobmod was right. The topic certainly needs to be split somehow and this is the best way to do it. (Also I have piped the lead to match the title, as is standard practice, hope you don't mind) - rst20xx (talk) 20:47, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks again everyone for advice, recommendations and amendments - all very much appreciated by a novice in this area. Incidentally does it now satisfy the criteria for FT rather than GT? Peter I. Vardy (talk) 10:06, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No, because FTs require 2 featured items minimum, and this only has 1 - rst20xx (talk) 11:49, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Close as consensus to promote. Nergaal's concerns about this being a forced topic (ie cherry-picked) do not seem held by others since the re-name, and were the only concern. If we don't allow splitting based on grades, no graded-building topic could ever be featured, which would not be good for the project.YobMod 17:09, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Noting that as of now, this has become a featured topic due to 2 of 3 articles being featured in the topic. Wizardman  Operation Big Bear 19:57, 8 July 2010 (UTC)