Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log

Featured content: Featured articles Featured lists Featured pictures Featured topics Featured list tools: Featured list criteria Featured list candidates Featured list removal candidates Featured list statistics Wikipedians by promoted featured list nominations Today's featured list This month's queue TFL submissions TFL statistics Featured lists that have appeared as TFL Featured lists yet to appear as TFL Featured list log Random featured list Former featured lists Removal candidates log

This is a log of featured lists from Wikipedia:Featured list candidates, with the most recent at the top. Discussions about unsuccessful nominations are located in the failed log.

Candidacy discussion about lists promoted in this calendar month is being placed at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/February 2025. Summary logs of articles promoted by year are also maintained; the most recent log is at Wikipedia:Featured lists promoted in 2025.

Full current month log

view - edit - history

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 8 February 2025 (UTC) [1].

---

Svalbard discography

Nominator(s): Chchcheckit (talk) 15:06, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I am about 1 article away from setting up a "Svalbard studio albums good topic" (4 albums); this is basically the reason this page exists. And because I think I've covered most/all bases in terms of their releases. Yeah. // Chchcheckit (talk) 15:06, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Update: all 4 studio albums are at GA status. // Chchcheckit (talk) 19:11, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Noting that you had failed to transclude this page to WP:FLC, but I've just done so @Chchcheckit. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

ah. Facepalm // Chchcheckit (talk) 21:40, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Support from MFTP Dan

Hello! I just have a few comments, mostly about sourcing.

• The band's formation story should be tightened for a discography page. How they met Lilley is not important here, especially considering this source is borderline and admissible probably only because of the circumstances of types of sources available to cover the band at the time. So, less is better here.
• I would recommend briefly highlighting in the lead how The Weight of the Mask was the band's first album to chart.
• Refs 26, 29, 35, and 36 are all attributed to Kerrang!. How come 26 and some others have an author placeholder? I don't think it's necessary myself, but if you must insist on adding something to that spot in the absence of a writing credit in the source, please do it to all such citations. You do it to at least one other source, too. Just make it consistent.
• What makes ref 5 and 15 - Circuit Sweet - a reliable source?
• What makes refs 7 and 18 - Idioteq - a reliable source? In all reality it's probably fine but I've never used it before and I don't remember if I ever have heard of it.
• Ref 12 should be reformatted to read Brave Words & Bloody Knuckles.
• Ref 38 - thePRP - is not my favorite. Is there anything better covering this information?

Other than that, good job. Look forward to seeing this and the albums promoted. mftp dan ^oops 14:40, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

@MFTP Dan Hi again. Comments:

• "this source is borderline and admissible probably only because of the circumstances of types of sources available to cover the band at the time" is an issue I recognize. I have tried to avoid primary sources where possible. im cureently looking for alternative sources to circuit sweet & idioteq in case ig:
  • If it helps, here's another reference confirming the release date of Flightless Birds
• lead cut down w/ note.
• Fixed Kerrang inconsistencies.
• Brave Words reformatted
• Regarding thePRP: I was trying to find a source which stated the director name. The only other one I can find with a google search of "to wilt beneath the weight" "fraser west" [sic] is this, if this is (though i don't think it is) any better.

I've never done one of these before so ig i got things to learn lol // Chchcheckit (talk) 22:21, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

I find Thrash Hits preferable to Circuit Sweet, for what it's worth. It's certainly more recognized in the scene. mftp dan ^oops 22:31, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

It's certainly more recognized in the scene. // Chchcheckit (talk) 22:32, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

if consensus then consensus nonetheless // Chchcheckit (talk) 22:33, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

@MFTP Dan alr, see anything else that needs patching up? // 22:41, 9 January 2025 (UTC) Chchcheckit (talk) 22:41, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

In the absence of anything otherwise suitable, the official video currently lists the director in the YouTube description. mftp dan ^oops 22:44, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

i'll just do that then. Chchcheckit (talk) 22:48, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

I looked into thePRP more - I'd prefer if you removed it actually, wookubus claims to be the only person running the place and I don't like the idea of using a self-published source here. After that, I will support, that about does it. mftp dan ^oops 00:37, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Aok Chchcheckit (talk) 12:27, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

@MFTP Dan done. plus copyedits Chchcheckit (talk) 13:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Comments

• You largely treat the band name as a plural, which is correct for British English, but as an outlier you have "Svalbard self-released its eponymous debut extended play in May 2012"
• "Svalbard developed a relationship with Pariso" - are Pariso another band? If so, maybe say "Svalbard developed a relationship with the [some sort of description] band Pariso"
• "release of their third album When I Die, Will I Get Better?." - as the title ends with a punctuation mark, there is no need for that full stop
• "Format: 7"" - suggest "Format: 7" vinyl" for total clarity (same on other similar rows)
• That's all I got - nice work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:30, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

  @ChrisTheDude All points have been addressed. // Chchcheckit (talk) 18:01, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:49, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Comments

• "Svalbard self-released their eponymous debut extended play in May 2012" → "Svalbard self-released their eponymous debut extended play (EP) in May 2012"
• "The band's fourth album" → "Svalbard's fourth album"
• All tables need a caption
• Are the music videos included on the albums?
• Shouldn't the year for ref 4 be 2015 as that is when Discography 2012–2014 was released?

That's everything from me! Sebbirrrr (talk) 00:20, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

@Sebbirrrr:

• Done
• Done
• Done
• Are the music videos included on the albums? Confused: Please clarify what you mean by this
• Ref 4 is the 2016 reissue/remaster, which I own. I use this reissue specificially (as opposed to the 2015 original and 2022 Church Road pressing) because it has detailed liner notes on when EP's/songs were released, pressing quantity and recoridng credits. The other reissues do not include such credits.

// Chchcheckit (talk) 13:46, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

(note: the original catalog number for the 2015 issue is HRR130CD, as opposed to HRR164) Chchcheckit (talk) 13:48, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Wait.

• "Svalbard self-released their eponymous debut extended play (EP) in May 2012" Isn't that kinda redundant since "extended play" is already mentioned above??

// Chchcheckit (talk) 16:26, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

@Chchcheckit: Apologies for the extended play comment, I skipped over the first sentence but "(EP)" should be added after "six extended plays" as the acronym appears later. Regarding the music videos, I meant to say that if they were not put on the album alongside the songs, then the album section is redundant. Thanks for clarifying my ref 4 confusion. Sebbirrrr (talk) 17:03, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

How is that redundant? The song the video was filmed for belongs to the album, I don't see how that really implies what you're saying it does. mftp dan ^oops 17:06, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

i don't personally think they matter but aghhhhhh ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ // Chchcheckit (talk) 20:37, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Don't worry! I just thought that column is better suited only for the singles but now I think it's fine to leave it as it is. Just don't forget about adding EP in the first sentence and that should be all! Sebbirrrr (talk) 18:54, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

ok Chchcheckit (talk) 19:32, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

@Sebbirrrr done Chchcheckit (talk) 19:33, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Support. Great work! Sebbirrrr (talk) 19:38, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Source review from TheDoctorWho

I can see a few comments on sourcing have been made above, but this is still listed as needing a formal source review.

• Not a sourcing issue, but the image needs alt text
• "V13.net" -> "V13 Media"
• The following comments apply to multiple sources:
  • Is "csweet" just an abbreviation for Circuit Sweet? If so, this should be removed as there doesn't appear to be a listed author on the source.
  • Is "anon" just an abbreviation for Anonymous? If so, same goes above.
  • Same goes for "admin".
  • Several sources are still live, but contain no archive.
• Spotchecked references 3, 8, 11, 16, 21, 24, 36, most appear to support their statements, bar the two below
  • Ref 21 doesn't appear to support that "Ripped Apart" was released in 2014
  • Ref 36 doesn't appear to support that Phelan directed "Silent Restraint"

Great work! Just a few issues to address. TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:35, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

@TheDoctorWho Thank you!!

• done
• done
• done
• done
• done
• internet archive botted
• Is Ref 21 an issue because it says "streamed"?
• Ref 36: "Whilst putting these clips together I realised that, to me, this video represents positivity and togetherness in a time when we've never been further apart," says Liam. [...] Thanks to everyone who contributed. I had a lot of fun putting it together." ah. i see. editing is not directing??? "n/a"-ed.

// Chchcheckit (talk) 12:05, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

The issue with source 21 was that I wasn't seeing a date (like essentially there was no way for me to tell if the article had been published in 2014 vs. yesterday). I checked the archived link, and it had the publish date, it's just something that's been removed in the live version of the source. Regardless, I'm satisfied with the archive link. Source review passes and I'm happy to support. TheDoctorWho (talk) 20:25, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Hey man im josh

• I think the singles and music video tables could be vastly improved by moving the references to their own columns. I recognize that the studio album table may not need this, as the current format is typical of album tables.
• Studio album table is missing some column scopes
• Music videos table is missing all column scopes
• "Kerrang!" as the website is not consistently wikilinked in sources
• Ref 29 – Leave out "Kerrang! Staff" as the author. It's assumed its the site/company's staff when no author is listed, hence the website parameter.
• Ref 7 – Same as above, remove "Rock Sound" as the author
• The music video sources, in a spot check I did, were not actually verifying the directors that are mentioned
• The ref for Ripped Apart under the singles table doesn't verify the year

Please make sure that the refs appropriately verify the information, that scopes are added where necessary, that the publisher/website is linked where possible in references, and then I'll provide a further review. Please ping me when that has been addressed. I do also have some concerns about the reliability of some sources used, but I'll address that in further feedback once the above has been addressed. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:02, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi;

• What are the missing column scopes? Sorry, not clear/don't understand what you mean here (i understand)
• Krrang staff (ref29) and Rock Sound (ref7) removed
• The music video sources, in a spot check I did, were not actually verifying the directors that are mentioned. I have a good idea of what you're gonna say. Should the director credits (mostly found in the music videos/youtube sources) be kept separate from the general references for the music videos?
• "Ripped Apart": archive URL used instead. this issue was noted by TheDoctorWho also.

// Chchcheckit (talk) 23:33, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

@Hey man im josh Okay, done all suggestions? I've added a column for references like you suggested. // Chchcheckit (talk) 13:54, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Also: removed citations that were not directly verifing music videos directors Chchcheckit (talk) 13:58, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

@Hey man im josh ping

Chchcheckit (talk) 02:44, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

sorry for the delay @Chchcheckit, I missed the first ping and don't typically edit on weekends.

• Scopes appear to have been resolved.
• For the Sake of the Breed don't verify the directors
• Looking at Dispartiy, is "Video by Liam Phelan" supposed to be interpreted as the director? This would also apply to a couple other videos.
• What makes "Already Heard" considered a reliable source?
• Same question about Circuit Sweet
• Can we do better than an independent record store in Ohio for reference one? I'd imagine the date of formation, members, and the fact they went through multiple bassists could be sourced from elsewhere
• Brooklyn Vegan is listed as a blog, and their editor in chief seems to just go by "Dave" has it ever been discussed at RSN?

I think that's all I have for now. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:09, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

@Hey man im josh Hi! thanks.

• ive been using the "video by" (disparity, open the cages, ftsotb, eternal spirits, faking it, to wilt beneath the weight) as director credit. idk a workaround for that it's the closest i have gotten to credit
• id say BrooklynVegan's wikipedia page offers enough cred behind them?? page also states that founder/editor "Dave" is David Levine. Ive also used BV on various GAs with no issue, though as an FA idk the difference. elaborate/explain if i don't understand sorry :)))
• circuit sweet is no longer cited/replaced by other refs
• redone w/out "bassists" line.
• would it be better to use something like their archived bandcamp page as a reference for what was released as a single, versus what was released as a music video only??? In doing so, I would probably get rid of "ripped apart" as "stream" is not clear as a web/site exclusive or smth else and get rid of already heard and the video announcement for "open the cages" (there aren't many sources about the announcement).

// Chchcheckit (talk) 14:32, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Your last point may be best addressed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Music or WP:ALBUMS, but I don't believe Bandcamp would be considered an appropriate source. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:29, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Clarification: not to cite it, just to use as a means of deduction. // Chchcheckit (talk) 19:56, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

oh. // Chchcheckit (talk) 21:44, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

@Hey man im josh Okay uhhhh I removed the instance of bandcamp and replaced it w/ another source. What's left. Chchcheckit (talk) 12:19, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

I'll go ahead n support. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:20, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:21, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

thank you!!!!!! // Chchcheckit (talk) 13:47, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 8 February 2025 (UTC) [2].

---

List of Kristen Bell performances

Nominator(s): Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 17:36, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Worked on this a while back then I never finished it because I forgot to... so i've finished it and believe that it should pass FLC Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 17:36, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Hey man im josh

This review is based on this version of the article.

Source review: Passed

• Reliable enough for the information being cited
• Consistent date formatting
• Consistent and proper reference formatting
• Appropriate wikilinks where applicable
• Spot checks on sources match what they are being cited for

Feedback:

• Table needs column scopes Done
• Table needs a title for accessibility Done
• You used row=scope instead of scope=row, which needs to be fixed Done
• When the rowspan is 2 or more, you should use rowgroup as the scope instead Done
• There's a couple instances, such as 2005 and 2010 in the film table, where there's efforts to set the scope twice Done
• Gossip girl row under television says 21–2023, I assume this was meant to be 2021–2023 Done
• Image needs alt text Done
• Ref 2 – Needs publish date Done
• Ref 2 – Says it was published by Jen Juneau, not Jim Done
• Refs 6, 11, 64, 75, and 77 – Change to TV Guide instead of TVGuide, to match the target Done
• Ref 20 – Add Associated Press as the agency Done
• Ref 20 – Add publish date Done
• Refs 23, 52, 53, 59, 63, 70 – "ScreenRant" -> "Screen Rant" to match the target Done
• Ref 29, 31, 67, 115 – (The New York Times sources)Add the url-access parameter to note that this story is accessed in full with a subscription by adding |url-access=subscription Done
• Refs 38 and 88 – "The Los Angeles Times" -> "Los Angeles Times" to match the target Done
• Ref 40 – "The Independtf" -> "The Independent" Done
• Ref 46 – Add url-access parameter (The Atlantic) Done
• Refs 82, 121, 122 – (Rolling Stone)
  • What about them? Done

That's what I've got to start and I'll have more feedback after this has been addressed. Please ping me when the above has been addressed. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:56, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

@Hey man im josh: Done with everything except the last one Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 03:58, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Oh sorry, the last one was meant to indicate it also needed the url-access parameter @OlifanofmrTennant. I'll try to go through for more feedback today.. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:44, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in getting back to this.

• You were missing a number of scopes still, but the cells were led with an exclamation point, making the first cell in a row grey, which sometimes makes people mistakenly think a scope has been defined
• Some of the scopes were row when they should have been rowgroup, fixed
• There were duplicate exclamation points in a spot
• There were duplicate scope definitions in the same spot
• I fixed the above issues, but please try to more diligent and careful about the scopes in future noms

The rest of the review is based on this version of the page.

• Refs 5 and 72 – One uses "E!" and the other uses "E! Online" Done
• Ref 34 and 41 – Cinema Blend appears to be showing up in my source highlighter as not reliable, any thoughts on its reliability?

• Cinemablend is published by Future plc, this FAQ breifly touches on their editorial policy and a little more detail can be found on their about page.

• Ref 35 – Author is listed as Joseph C. Lin instead of Joseph Lin. Typically we'd want to use whatever they list themselves as instead of cutting it short, since some authors do opt to include a middle initial for various reasons. Done
• Ref 38 and 88 – Mark as a subscription required (Los Angeles Times) Done'
• Ref 40 – Needs author and publish date
• Ref 43 – Add publish date Done
• Ref 45 – Add publish date Done
• Ref 48 – Needs a publish date Done
• Ref 55 – Add author Done
• Ref 56 – Add publish date Done
• Ref 60 – Add author and publish date Done
• Ref 73 – Add author Done
• Ref 81 – Add publish date Done
• Ref 87 – Add publish date Done
• Ref 90 – Add author Done
• Ref 92 – Change "TIME" to "Time" - match target / be consistent withref 35 Done
• Ref 92 – Add author Done
• Ref 103 – Mark as subscription required (The Boston Globe) Done
• Ref 107 – Add publish date Done

That should be the gist of what I got (ping me when done). Hey man im josh (talk) 14:52, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

@Hey man im josh: done also to explain the first half, I didn't alter the table manually to use scopes I used the find and replace tool. Didn't think it would have such a poor result so I will not be using it going forward Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 03:57, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Support. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:53, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Comments

• Titles starting with "A" or "The" should sort based on the next word in the title
• Eleanor Shellstrop should sort under S
• That's it I think - great work!! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:47, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

  @ChrisTheDude: Done Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 03:56, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:26, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

• Comment - not sure what is expected on this type of list but a bit concerned regarding the role column generally lacking sourcing. The table lists full name of the roles, when many of the references identify the first name of her character only which might be as much as you could expect, however some references don't list a character name at all - 'Safety Not Guaranteed', 'Stuck in Love', 'The Boss' and 'CHiPs' for example, can alternative sources be found? The reference used for 'Big Mouth' only mentions her role in 'Central Park'. The reference used for 'Gracie's Choice' doesn't even mention that film at all, except for in the comments, so can't identify if Gracie Thompsom is a typo. JP (Talk) 14:00, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

  Replaced the Gracie's choice citation but as for the role, in my experience, all you need is a source confirming the actor appeared in the film, the role is confirmed by the movie/show. Similar to how you Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 15:22, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

  @Jpeeling: forgot to ping Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 21:54, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

  @Jpeeling, just wanted to see if you had more feedback and to see if @OlifanofmrTennant addressed your concerns. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:18, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

  No further feedback, my original concerns remain but the nominator disagrees with them. JP (Talk) 13:09, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Comments from TheDoctorWho

• "and appeared in a Broadway revival of The Crucible the following year" - what is the following year? An initial year is never stated. Done
• "appeared in a Broadway" -> "appearing in a broadway" Done
• "lead role of Eleanor Shellstrop on the critically acclaimed NBC comedy series" - 'critically acclaimed' is loaded language and requires multiple high quality sources to support it. While I don't disagree, such sources aren't attached to the statement, you either need to remove them or add sources. MOS:ACCLAIMED/WP:PUFFERY. Done
• Can I ask about the reliability of Moviefone? It appears that they once referred to their authors as "bloggers" ([3]) and Monika isn't listed there at that time.
  • The bloggers labeled appears to be a branding thing, I'll see if its replaceable.
• There's quite a few listings in the television section that specify a number of episodes. WP:FILMOGRAPHY requires many of these to be directly sourced - "Do not list the number of episodes if the role is a starring or major recurring role unless it is sourced. If the role does not cover the entire run of a television program, list the seasons involved instead." - can I ask if this advice is followed? Done
• Why is the role field empty for The Tiny Chef Show? Added
• The role in A Man on the Inside is uncredited per the source - any reason why uncredited roles are noted in some places and not others?
  • As far as I'm aware all roles that are un-credited are listed as such, I didnt create the table only sourced it. I don't really want to check the credits of 100 or so different projects
• It appears that there are some web sources that are still live that haven't been archived. Done
• There are also some MOS:CURLY quotes in reference titles
  • Which ones? I tried a script but nothing came up
• And at least one incorrect date format.

I think that's all I have, great work!TheDoctorWho (talk) 23:19, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

I went ahead an ran them, but this is my preferred dumb quote converter, this for dates. No worries about checking 100 credits, but I would at least go ahead and add the uncredited mention to the single credit I mentioned. I can see you've already run IA Bot and I know it's been a little pesky lately, so I'm satisfied with that as well If they the "bloggers" is a branding thing, it's not an issue, I just wanted to check. Just the "critically acclaimed" and filmography number of episodes to go before I pass the sources. TheDoctorWho (talk) 05:29, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

• @TheDoctorWho: done Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 22:53, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

  Happy to support, great work again! TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:19, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:49, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 8 February 2025 (UTC) [4].

---

List of Hot Adult Contemporary number ones of 1984

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:31, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

With the 1982 list having just been promoted and the 1983 list having significant support, here's the 1984 list. In this particular year, two of the guys behind one of the most famous heavy rock songs of all time made their first appearance on a chart historically more used to the likes of Barry Manilow and the Carpenters and went all the way to number one. Feedback as always will be most gratefully received and swiftly acted upon! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:31, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Comments

MPGuy2824

• The three images in the list section need "pictured in xyz" since all of them are more than a decade from 1984.
• Billboard magazine does have an ISSN: 0006-2510. You can consider adding that to the relevant refs, if you want.
• Didn't see any other problems with prose or table accessibility. Support promotion. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:34, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
  • I added the "pictured in". Unlike me to omit that...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:55, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Hey man im josh

Source review: Passed

• Reliable enough for the information being cited
• Consistent date formatting
• Consistent and proper reference formatting
• Appropriate wikilinks where applicable
• Spot checks on 15 sources match what they are being cited for

I got nothing. Great stuff Chris. Support. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:19, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

OlifanofmrTennant

Table has row scopes

Table has column scopes

Table has a screen reader only caption

All four images have proper alt text

Everything sorts properly

Several refs are missing archive urls

Ref 6 needs the "|url-access=subscription" parameter

Sources are consistantly linked

All but ref 4 are consistently using the MDY format

Probably use the "Use MDY dates" template.

Spot checked 15 sources and everything lined up.

In the Stevie Wonder image shouldnt Academy Award be linked?

That's all I got ping when done. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 20:17, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

@OlifanofmrTennant: - date and access parameter fixed. I have run the IABot on this article five or six times and some of the refs it simply refuses to archive, no idea why -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:31, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Yeah sometimes IAbot just doesn’t work. Try manually archiving the refs but I won’t hold on that Support Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 08:46, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

ZooBlazer

I was going to try to be nitpicky just to find some sort of issue, but everything looks good already. Well done yet again with this series of lists! Support. -- ZooBlazer 07:16, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

NØ

Support - Seems like there has been a good amount of feedback already. Great work as usual! I have an FAC somewhat struggling to gain traction in case you are interested.--NØ 05:59, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:29, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 7 February 2025 (UTC) [5].

---

List of songs recorded by SZA

Nominator(s): Elias 🦗🐜 ^{[Chat, they chattin', they chat]} 05:40, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Having returned from a pretty chill holiday break, I've found myself in a better headspace to work on major projects. Inspired by the release of SZA's most recent album, I'd like to present the list of songs recorded by SZA. This was a daunting page to complete, but I hope with your comments, this list is brought to its best possible condition. Elias 🦗🐜 ^{[Chat, they chattin', they chat]} 05:40, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Glaston2024 2806 300624 (157 of 173) (53837667841) (cropped).jpg - CC BY 2.0
• File:Pulitzer2018-portraits-kendrick-lamar.jpg - CC BY-SA 4.0
• File:Isaiah Rashad Feb 2014.jpg - CC BY 2.0, original source shows a different tag or am I missing something?
• File:Travis Scott - Openair Frauenfeld 2019 08.jpg - CC BY-SA 4.0
• File:Cardi B 2021 02.jpg - CC BY-SA 3.0
• File:Doja Cat Planet Her Day Party 1 (cropped).jpg - CC0
• File:Glasto2023 (181 of 468) (53009327490) (cropped).jpg - CC BY 2.0
• File:Deshaymephi.jpg - CC BY 3.0
• File:RobBisel–NicKhang1 (2) (cropped) (cropped).jpg - CC BY-SA 4.0
• Captions, alt text, pictures, all relevant.
  • Just have the one inquiry^ Arconning (talk) 10:30, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    • @Arconning, the image was originally uploaded on Flickr under CC BY 2.0 (it seems the user who reposted it to Commons erroneously used CC BY 4.0). The Flickr license changed to CC BY-ND 2.0 in 2018, but that was two years after the license review Elias 🦗🐜 ^{[Chat, they chattin', they chat]} 02:48, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

      Ooh I see, Support then. Arconning (talk) 10:30, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Comments on lead only

• "Psychedelic, lo-fi instrumentals and an urban musical style with "feminine inflections" characterize SZA's early songs" - "psychedelic" is an adjective, not a noun, so you can't say that "Psychedelic [...] characterize[s] SZA's early songs"
  • ....thinking about it, is it meant to mean "Psychedelic lo-fi instrumentals"? If so, then lose the comma as it causes confusion (to me at least, it seems ) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:35, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    • I changed the comma to an "and" (to prevent sea of blue issues)
• "As time passed, the media started to consistently label SZA in publications" - last two words are redundant I think - where else would the media label her thus?
  • Good point
• "SZA has appeared on dozens of soundtracks" - really? she has appeared on 25+ soundtracks? That seems a lot for an artist who released her debut album less than 8 years ago.....
  • That was definitely a stray phrase I forgot to remove before moving to mainspace. My bad.
• "her label's manager Punch said that leaks of the sort could cause" => "her label's manager Punch said that leaks of this sort could cause" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

• Pinging @PSA for followup. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:02, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

  Thank you Josh for the reminder. Apologies that this totally slipped my mind. @ChrisTheDude, I hope the replies have addressed your concerns. Regards, Elias 🦗🐜 ^{[Chat, they chattin', they chat]} 02:48, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

  Hello @ChrisTheDude, just wanted to know if you have anything else to add. Thanks, Elias 🦗🐜 ^{[Chat, they chattin', they chat]} 03:52, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

  Apologies, I will endeavour to revisit later today -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:25, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Comments

• "Feminine inflections" is a quote and should be attributed accordingly
  • Removed; I figured it made the sentence way too long
• "Dear Evan Hansen soundtrack" → "Dear Evan Hansen: Original Motion Picture Soundtrack"
• "Space Jam: A New Legacy soundtrack" → "Space Jam: A New Legacy (Original Motion Picture Soundtrack)"
• "Trolls World Tour soundtrack" → "Trolls World Tour: Original Motion Picture Soundtrack"
• "Insecure soundtrack" → "Insecure (Music from the HBO Original Series)"
  • Any reason why all of these four should be changed?
    • Those are the names that the soundtrack albums were released under and thus it would be appropriate to label them as such in the table. Sebbirrrr (talk) 18:59, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
• "SZA co-wrote one SOS track with Lizzo" → "SZA co-wrote "F2F" with Lizzo" per WP:EASTEREGG
  • Removed the link instead
• Wouldn't it be better to have a separate column for the refs in the unreleased songs table?
  • I do not think so. Moving all the references to another column will (1) make the column very cluttered and (2) make it hard for readers to determine which source supports which fact
    • Didn't think of the latter but it makes sense. Sebbirrrr (talk) 18:59, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
• The acronym DSPs is invoked several times but it doesn't say anywhere what it stands for
  • Now defined in the "Back Together" entry

That's all I have! Sebbirrrr (talk) 20:55, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you @Sebbirrrr. responses above. Elias 🦗🐜 ^{[Chat, they chattin', they chat]} 02:48, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

@PSA: Thanks for the ping, just one more inquiry. Sebbirrrr (talk) 18:59, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

@Sebbirrrr done (for consistency with the For the Throne entry) Elias 🦗🐜 ^{[Chat, they chattin', they chat]} 04:09, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Support. Sebbirrrr (talk) 18:53, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Hey man im josh

This review is based on this version of the article.

Source review: Passed

• Reliable enough for the information being cited
• Consistent date formatting
• Consistent and proper reference formatting
• Appropriate wikilinks where applicable
• Spot checks on sources match what they are being cited for

Feedback:

• Ref 12 – ASCAP and BMI shouldn't be listed as the authors, but as work/publisher or something similar
• Ref 12 and 106 – Typically we only do via Internet Archive when they're the host of said info, like a book or something.
• Ref 106 – ASCAP should be listed as the website or work instead of the author
• Ref 117 – Link American Songwriter
• Ref 118 – Missingauthor and publish date
• Ref 118 – Is there a reason you don't link to People (magazine) and pipe it as "People"?
• Ref 120 – No website listed

Please ping me when the above has been addressed. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:56, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Pinging @PSA for follow up on this and the below comment. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:40, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello @Hey man im josh, and sorry for the wait. I believe I've addressed everything. Elias 🦗🐜 ^{[Chat, they chattin', they chat]} 08:04, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Support. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:10, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

More comments

• "They are former Top Dawg labelmates" - source?
• "He and SZA are current labelmates." - source?
  • Hello, @ChrisTheDude. Apologies for the wait. I have added citations for both facts Elias 🦗🐜 ^{[Chat, they chattin', they chat]} 07:40, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
• The unreleased songs section contains several songs which were apparently released.......?

-- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:24, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

• • "Unreleased" refers to songs that neither SZA, her label, nor her collaborators released. Perhaps changing the header to "Unreleased music" will clarify things? If you're referring to "Die for You" and "Calling My Phone", then you'd be correct, but there were demo verses by SZA that were intended for the final songs and leaked online. That was what I meant by unreleased. Elias 🦗🐜 ^{[Chat, they chattin', they chat]}
    • In that case I would suggest "Songs not officially released" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:07, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

    @ChrisTheDude, done Elias 🦗🐜 ^{[Chat, they chattin', they chat]} 15:31, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:56, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:42, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 7 February 2025 (UTC) [6].

---

List of Billboard Latin Pop Albums number ones from the 1990s

Nominator(s): Erick (talk) 23:26, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

It's been a while since I posted any FL nominees, sorry about that, been fighting my personal demons. Anyways, this is a continuation of List of Billboard Latin Pop Albums number ones from the 1980s. As always, I'm open to any address any issues brought up on this list! Erick (talk) 23:26, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

History6042

• "has since became a sub chart" -> "has since become a sub chart"
• "established on the same week" -> "established in the same week"
• "requiring to have 70% of its content" -> "requiring it to have 70% of its content"
• "Latin albums in the US" -> "Latin album in the US"
• "Ricky Martin, Luis Miguel, dubbed" -> "Ricky Martin, and Luis Miguel, dubbed"
• "credited for reviving mainstream interest" -> "credited with reviving mainstream interest"
• History6042😊 (Contact me) 02:47, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

  @History6042 Fixed all that you addressed, thanks for the comments! Erick (talk) 02:53, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

  Support on prose/grammar. History6042😊 (Contact me) 13:13, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Comments

• "The chart was published on a fortnightly basis" - when? Just in this decade? Or always?
• "The methodology for the chart was amended on the week of July 10, 1993" => "The methodology for the chart was amended with the effect from the week of July 10, 1993"
• "Additionally, the chart is now published weekly" => "At the same time, the chart began to be published weekly"
• "has since become a sub char of Top Latin Albums " - when did this happen? Also "chart" is spelt wrong
• "Billboard also imposed a linguistic rule of an album requiring it to have 70% of its content in Spanish" => "Billboard also imposed a linguistic rule requiring an album to have 70% of its content in Spanish"
• "which had been in the top spot since the issue dated November 18, 1989." - source?
• "Other female acts to reach number one on the chart include" => "Other female acts to reach number one on the chart in the 1990s included"
• "Luis Miguel had the most number one album of the decade" => "Luis Miguel had the most number one albums of the decade"
• "His album Romance (1991), was" - no reason for that comma
• "spent 16 weeks on the apex of the chart" => "spent 16 weeks at the apex of the chart"
• "also reached number-one" => "also reached number one"
• " Macarena Non Stop (1996) by Los del Río, Macarena Mix (1995)" => " Macarena Non Stop (1996) by Los del Río and Macarena Mix (1995)"
• "It would be the band's only number one album on the chart" - which band? You listed five in the last sentence.
• "Three non predominately Spanish-language albums" => "Three predominately non-Spanish-language albums"
• "Although Supernatural topped the chart on the week of July 3, 1999" => "Although Supernatural topped the chart in the week of July 3, 1999"
• "Los del Río (pictured in 2009) acheive their only number one on the chart" => "Los del Río (pictured in 2009) achieved their only number one on the chart"
• The top album on Billboard's year-end chart isn't necessarily the best-selling Latin pop album of the year. It's the best charting based on a methodology which allocates points based on its position each week. I would reword to "Indicates the number one on Billboard's year-end Latin pop albums chart"
• The note should probably have a bullet point before it -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:38, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

  @ChrisTheDude Thanks as always Chris! Let me know if I missed anything! Erick (talk) 19:37, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

• "and has since become a sub char" - chart is still spelt wrong and "since" still doesn't specify when it became a sub-chart. Other than that, all looks great! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:29, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

  Okay, I think I nailed it down. The same week that the Top Latin Albums chart was established was also when the Latin Pop Albums became a sub chart of it. I fixed the sentence to the best I could, how does it look? Erick (talk) 17:13, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:39, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Hey man im josh

This review is based on version of the article.

Source review: Passed

• Reliable enough for the information being cited
• Consistent date formatting
• Consistent and proper reference formatting
• Appropriate wikilinks where applicable
• Spot checks on 15 sources match what they are being cited for

Feedback:

• Ricky Martin image has no alt text
• Ref 7 – It looks like your approach is to link the first instance of a source in references, so with that said... Link to the LA Times
• Ref 7 and 9 – Need url-access parameters added, as they request a subscription to read
• Refs 12, 15, and 16 – Your referencing practices seem to be to link the first time a source appears in the references, so only link Recording Industry Association of America in ref 12
• Ref 17 – First time AllMusic appears, so link it
• Refs 18, 20, 21, and 22 – For consistency with ref 17, it seems these should be using the website or work parameter for AllMusic instead of the publisher one.

That's what I've got, and you've got nothing to apologize for regarding any type of absence. I'm just thrilled whenever a FLC regular returns or sticks around. Please ping me when the above has been addressed. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:41, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

@Hey man im josh Hey there, thanks for your kind comments! The only changes I couldn't fix were the {{Certification Cite Ref}} to disallow multiple to the RIAA and for AllMusic, I corrected the name and moved all of them to publisher since AllMusic is an online music datatbase. Erick (talk) 19:40, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

@Magiciandude: Makes sense, so long as the AllMusic references are consistent. I'm a bit hung up on the consistency for linking though, as that is one of the main things that I look at when doing reviews. Perhaps you could swap to a different citation template, or link to the source in all references (would be quick with the built in find and replace tool)? Hey man im josh (talk) 19:46, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

@Hey man im josh If I understand what you're saying, I can just link to the RIAA database and from there, the information can be verified with its searchable database? Erick (talk) 20:08, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

@Magiciandude: I see now what the purpose of that template is in regards to auto generating the reference. Yeah, that complicates things a bit, but linking to just the search itself isn't an improvement. This is what I meant when I suggested you convert the references so that the linking can be consistent. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:17, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Ohhhh, whoops, heh, my bad. I'll keep that mind next time I do a FLC for these kinds of lists. Thanks Josh! Erick (talk) 20:20, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Support. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:05, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Comments from Jpeeling

A few reference bits spotted:

• Current references 55, 81, 86, 87, 125, 206, 230, 391 and 398 all link to wrong date of Billboard charts
• "February 15, 1997" is a repeated row
• References 308 to 310 link to correct date but use wrong year in the title of the reference
• References 115, 368 links to correct date but wrong date in the title of the reference
• Second use of reference 5 (Ana Gabriel chart history) placed after statement regarding Selena's 44 weeks at number 1, should this be to Selena's chart history?

JP (Talk) 10:23, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

@Jpeeling Thanks for catching those! Let me know if I missed anything else. Erick (talk) 18:10, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:46, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 12:25, 3 February 2025 (UTC) [7].

---

1960 Winter Olympics medal table

Nominator(s): Hey man im josh (talk) 18:32, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

This is Olympic medal table #7 for me (Winter Games nom #3), and it's the the shortest one I've worked on so far. There were no NOCs as a first time medalist or first time gold medalists, no stripped medals to mention, and only a single first time participant. It was a relatively run of the mill event, with high stakes of course. As always, I will do my best to respond to all comments as quickly as possible, and I appreciate any and all feedback that is given. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:32, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Comments

• "665 athletes representing" - I would suggest "A total of 665 athletes representing" to avoid that whole "starting a sentence with a digit" thing which, while probably not technically wrong, always looks a bit "off" to me
• Infobox image caption needs a full stop
• "Athletes presenting 14 NOCs" => "Athletes representing 14 NOCs"
• That's all I got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:53, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

  Done! Thank you as always for the feedback @ChrisTheDude. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:00, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:32, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Source review

Dates are consistantly formatted

Everything is linked

Spotchecked all sources and everything lines up.

Support unrelated but "California, United States" violated MOS:GEOLINK I'm assuming this will be fixed so happy to support. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 17:05, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Oh boy am I grateful to have gotten a quick source review, thanks @OlifanofmrTennant! I've addressed the MOS:GEOLINK issue, which I appreciate you pointing out. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:33, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

BP!

Placeholder. If you have a moment or are willing to review my FAC Ethan Winters, I'll also appreciate it! Unfortunately, it is not flc. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 13:10, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

• The 1960 Winter Olympics, officially known as the VIII Olympic Winter Games and also known as Squaw Valley 1960, were a winter multi-sport event held from February 18 to 28, 1960, at the Squaw Valley Resort (now known as Palisades Tahoe) in Squaw Valley (now known as Olympic Valley), California, United States. This seems to be a long ass sentence. Can you maybe reword/rephrase it?
• Can you bundle those 4 citations together so that the article will look better?
• Can you maybe capitalize the "D" from the surname "De Bruin"? 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 13:10, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

  • This seems to be a long ass sentence. Can you maybe reword/rephrase it? – Long as the sentence may be, it's following the standard format, and there's nothing technically wrong with it from my perspective.
  • Can you bundle those 4 citations together so that the article will look better? – I typically do not bundle citations unless there's five of them. My opinion is that this does not negatively affect the readability or make the article look worse.
  • Can you maybe capitalize the "D" from the surname "De Bruin"? – The source does not capitalize it, and if you look at De Bruin, you'll see it's a fairly common thing not to do so.

  I appreciate you taking a look over the article and providing a review @Boneless Pizza!. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:24, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

  Just following up to see if I've addressed all of your points or whether there's any outstanding issue(s) @Boneless Pizza!. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:44, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

  Hi. I don't see any other issues at the article now. So, I'll Support this nom. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 22:31, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

ZooBlazer

• Image has alt text, appropriately licensed, and the caption fits the article. So I guess with just one image, the image review passes
• Do you need all 4 of the first references together, or is it possible to cut it down one or two?
• Not sure if it's something absolutely needed or not, but based on reviews of my lists in the past, I've been told to include |+ {{sronly|TEXT HERE}} for the tables, so maybe add that.

Overall the article looks good! My comments are mostly nitpicking. It's crazy how many more medals are awarded these days compared to this Olympics. -- ZooBlazer 22:00, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

@ZooBlazer: Thank you for the review! To address your points, I tried very hard to find the appropriate references to not use 4 refs on the lead sentence, but due to the name changes and the variety of information contained in the lead sentence, I was unable to. As for the suggested template, the purpose of that is to add a table title for screen readers. In that template, that heading is meant to only be displayed for screen readers. This is not necessary when there's already a title added to the table, but some people opt to hide a table title while others choose to include it. In this case, and in the case of most Olympic medal tables, it makes more sense to include the caption with the source as the top 10 entries for the table are often transcluded into the main Olympics article.

Never feel bad nitpicking any of my noms, it only serves to make them better and pushes me to consider various aspects of what I'm doing when I'm doing them! Hey man im josh (talk) 17:13, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

All good then. Happy to support! -- ZooBlazer 17:36, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Matthewrb

• I have spot-checked the references and the medal totals look good.
• I believe a link to Category:1960 Winter Olympics would be worth a {{Commons category}} under the See Also section.
• Would it be worth adding an External Links section? There is an official site

All of these are minor nitpicks, list looks good otherwise. ~ Matthewrb ^{Let's connect · Here to help} 21:41, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the review @Matthewrb! It's my perspective that the official site link is better shared from the main article, which it is shared from. I also feel the same way about the commons category, since this is, in a sense/from my perspective, a subset/subtopic of the event. If there were a relevant sub topic of the commons category I think I'd be on board, such as Commons:Category:Sportspeople with 2024 Summer Olympics medals or Commons:Category:Podiums at the 2024 Summer Olympics. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:36, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Fair enough, that does make sense. Since all of my concerns are addressed, I support this nomination. ~ Matthewrb ^{Let's connect · Here to help} 18:12, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 03:06, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.