The Council of Lithuania was convened at the Vilnius Conference that took place between September 18 and 23, 1917. The twenty men composing the council were of different ages, social status, professions, and political affiliations. The council was granted the executive authority of the Lithuanian people and was entrusted to establish an independent Lithuanian state. On February 16, 1918, the members of the council signed the Act of Independence of Lithuania and declared Lithuania an independent state based on democratic principles. February 16 is celebrated as Lithuania's State Restoration Day. The council managed to establish the proclamation of independence despite the presence of German troops in the country until the autumn of 1918. By the spring of 1919, the council had almost doubled in size. The council continued its efforts until the Constituent Assembly of Lithuania first met on May 15, 1920.
M.K, the primary contributor to these three articles, has left Wikipedia, and I have been unsuccessful in contacting him. I believe these articles meet the featured topic criteria because the topic is complete, and each article in the topic is either at good status or featured status. There is the main article about the council, a second article about the document the council was created to prepare and sign, and a third article about the members of the council, which is to say the signatories of the document. --Neelix (talk) 15:05, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This is rather interesting. All three of these articles were promoted in 2007/2008 and are now being nominated for FTC in 2014. Just to make sure, all three of the articles were looked over to make certain that they still met the criteria of GA and FA before being nominated, right? GamerPro6415:44, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - there are a number of places in both the Act of Independence and Members articles that lack citations - for instance, the table in the Members article has citations for their political affiliation and the dates of birth and death but not for their profession/education. These problems would prevent either article from passing FAC/FLC in their current state. Parsecboy (talk) 12:07, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have added the relevant citations to the profession column in the Members article. As I do not know Lithuanian, I have contacted Novickas, one of the primary contributors to these articles, to request help in addressing the remaining sourcing issues. Neelix (talk) 17:34, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello all - thanks for contacting me, User:Neelix, and for fixing the dead links. I think we also need to contact User:Renata3, who worked on the articles and still edits once in a while. About referencing. In the signatories (aka Members) article - I believe the sources in the table headings discuss them collectively. That's true for the single online reference (currently no. 2, [1]) that discusses their various occupations and backgrounds. And I think it's also true of the two references for their political affiliations & date and place of birth and death (currently references 3 and 4, which I don't have access to). Is a single reference for all the column entries in a table no longer acceptable? I could see it as unacceptable in the case of a longer list (like brain tumor patients), because it would seem improbable, but this is list is only 20 people and given their importance it’s not startling to see that a single source discusses all of them. (Haven’t looked at the Act article issues yet – may not have time to do that for a week or so. In the meantime, Parsec, could you mention the issues at the Act talk page, or stick cite-needed tags where you think they're needed?) Novickas (talk) 13:49, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delegate comment - This nomination has been up for over a month and besides a few comments made to it, there has been neither a Support or Oppose. There needs to be some more discussion before a consensus is reached. GamerPro6403:47, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pinging me - I had forgotten I'd commented on this FTC! There are still a couple of places that lack citations - I added {{cn}} tags on them so they're easier to spot. Parsecboy (talk) 12:10, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- I've never spent much time here at FTC but when I decided it might be worth making my first nomination of a group of articles, I naturally had to spend time familiarising myself with the criteria. This nominee seems like a logical and comprehensive grouping, I think it meets the criteria, so happy to support. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:52, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Closed with a consensus to promote to Featured Topic. Also for anyone who is making a Featured Topic, it is recommended to add a short introductory paragraph about the topic for when an article that's part of it is on the main page. - GamerPro6419:52, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Inside No. 9 is one of the better things I've seen on TV in the last few years. Almost all critics loved it, but the viewing figures weren't great. Hopefully this topic does Inside No. 9 justice- it contains articles on all six episodes and the article on the programme itself. I hope to get some of them up to FA status at some point, and I look forward to the second series, when I'll (hopefully!) be expanding this topic considerably. All comments welcome. --J Milburn (talk) 21:27, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great set of articles; nice work. I'm sure you'll be able to maintain the quality of the main article as the second season airs. 23W23:21, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Six articles in the series, all at GA. Did "The Inventors" have any review coverage? czar ♔19:35, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support. A few blogs picked up on "The Inventors", but nothing in any newspapers or from major critics. The section mostly relies on primary sources as there wasn't much else available. J Milburn (talk) 08:01, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If a second series is already in production, this topic will become unstable once it airs. I would assume season articles and an episode list would also be made eventually, too. So I would recommend this topic being just for season 1, and then creating further topics for later seasons, which is the norm at WP:GT#Theatre, film and drama.--十八20:38, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comment. I've no objection to this being a season 1 topic in theory, but I've no intention of creating separate season articles in the short or medium term; the main article is only at 17kb readable prose size (plus some tables/lists), and covering the second series would not push it much higher. Per WP:TOOBIG, this is a perfectly manageable length. The second series is, in theory, in production, but we don't know when it'll be appearing, so this could be stable for a while yet. Especially given the small number of episodes, I would have thought that series articles would be a little excessive before there were three or four series at least. J Milburn (talk) 22:04, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delegate Comment - Been over a month since the last comment was made here. While there are two Supports for the topic, there needs to be more input to gain a consensus for it. GamerPro6402:10, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
