Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log
Featured list tools: |
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/June 2024. Summary logs of articles promoted by year are also maintained; the most recent log is at Wikipedia:Featured lists promoted in 2024.
Full current month log
- 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) 00:26, 3 June 2024 (UTC) [1].[reply]
Snooker world rankings 1985/1986
- Nominator(s): BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:51, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yet another in the series of snooker world rankings lists. Steve Davis held a large lead over anyone else. Unlike the previous two years, the World Professional Billiards and Snooker Association did not change its mind about how to compile the list after it was published. As per usual, copies of relevant source extracts can be provided to reviewers, and all improvement suggestions are welcome. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:51, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- I don't know if there's a hard and fast rule on this, but to me the lead image looks a bit odd in the middle of the lead rather than its usual position of right at the top
- Moved. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:02, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Dashes within dashes looks a bit weird in the second paragraph. Maybe change the one before "which were" to a comma
- Amended in a different way, but happy with your suggestion here instead.
- "In the 1983/84 snooker season" vs "with effect from the 1984–85 season" vs "for the 1985/1986 rankings".....? Three different formats?
- Now hopefully all like 1985/1986. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:02, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- "The tournaments that counted towards the 1985/1986 were those" - think the word "rankings" is missing
- Added "rankings" BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:02, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- "No points were awarded to a player who did not win any matches in a given tournament. (For example, a top 16 player seeded into the last 32 of the world championship would not win any merit points if they lost their first match.)" => "No points were awarded to a player who did not win any matches in a given tournament (for example, a top 16 player seeded into the last 32 of the world championship would not win any merit points if they lost their first match)."
- Amended. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:02, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- This needs amending in the "points tariff" section too..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:37, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Now done. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:19, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Think that's it! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:13, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Many thanks, ChrisTheDude. Let me know if anything else is required. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:02, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:21, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pseud 14
- Initially the rankings were based on performances -- comma after initially
- The UK Championship and Dulux British Open were added for to the ranking list with effect from the -- unless it is a BEng styling - for conciseness The UK Championship and Dulux British Open were added to the ranking list
- In additional to standard ranking points awarded as per the table below -- In addition to standard ranking points
- That's all from me. Great works as usual. Pseud 14 (talk) 18:32, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Many thanks, {{u|Pseud 14}. Hopefully now sorted, but let me know if nayhting else is required. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 09:53, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The ping didn't go through. Just a couple points missed, but made the edits so it's easier. Support. Pseud 14 (talk) 15:32, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Image review: Passed
- Images have alt text
- Images are appropriately licensed
- Images have succinct captions and are relevant to the article. Pseud 14 (talk) 18:32, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
MPGuy2824
- Alex Higgins' total needs to be corrected.
- Done. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:24, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't quite understand the sentence "Merit points were only used to determine placings between players that had an equal opportunity to earn them." An explanation might help me justify the relative rankings of Meo, Thorne and Charleton (10-12). -MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:06, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Many thanks, MPGuy2824. I've added a little to that sentence. Although sources don't specify it, I believe that Meo being ranked above Thorne is because at the 1983 World Snooker Championship, Thorne could not earn merit points because he was seeded directly into the last-32, so Meo's merit point from that tournament is disregarded for the purpose of their relative rankings. Regards, 10:24, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thorne could not earn merit points because he was seeded directly into the last-32, so Meo's merit point from that tournament is disregarded for the purpose of their relative rankings
This would exacerbate the problem. But, I'd guess that there were similar things in other tournaments which worked in reverse. I assume that you are getting the ranking from one of the books in addition to snooker.org. Should be fine, if so.- In any case, I support promotion. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 13:37, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Many thanks, MPGuy2824. I've added a little to that sentence. Although sources don't specify it, I believe that Meo being ranked above Thorne is because at the 1983 World Snooker Championship, Thorne could not earn merit points because he was seeded directly into the last-32, so Meo's merit point from that tournament is disregarded for the purpose of their relative rankings. Regards, 10:24, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)
- Tables need row scopes on the "primary" column for each row, which in combination with column scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Row scopes can be added by adding
!scope=row
to each primary cell, e.g.|1|| ...
becomes!scope=row | 1
, on its own line. If the cell spans multiple rows with a rowspan, then use!scope=rowgroup
instead. - Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. I don't return to these reviews until the nomination is ready to close, so ping me if you have any questions. --PresN 13:36, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Oops, I should know that by now. Now added. thanks, PresN. Regads, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:19, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Source review – The books, newspaper articles and website pages used all appear sufficiently reliable and well-formatted. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:29, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- 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) 00:06, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- 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) 00:25, 3 June 2024 (UTC) [2].[reply]
List of Cincinnati Bengals first-round draft picks
- Nominator(s): Hey man im josh (talk) 18:50, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is nomination #11 for me in this series and will hopefully be #31 in the series to be promoted. This is the second to last nomination in the series, so we're almost done! This nomination's format matches that of other AFL team lists I've helped to promote, such as the Buffalo Bills, New England Patriots, and Tennessee Titans. As always, I will do my best to response quickly to address any and all concerns that are brought up. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:50, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Source & image review from Dylan620
I'm going to tackle a source review this time around – a (very) cursory glance is already promising, with extensive usage of at least two reliable sources that have been cited extensively in previous lists. Should be finished tomorrow or the day after. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 20:54, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Source review
on hold, details below:- The refs to the Chicago Tribune, AP News, and United Press International (and probably USA Today as well) should use
{{cite news}}
instead of{{cite web}}
. - Spot-checked refs 3, 4, 5, 7, 12, 17, 18, 19, 21, 22, 24, 26, and 30 (ref numbers as they appear in this revision):
- Ref 4 is hosted on the website for USA Today, but the Cincinatti Enquirer is named under the byline... should the source be credited to the Cincinatti Enquirer, with a
via
parameter added to mention USA Today? - Footnote A, cited to ref 24, states that the last pick in the first draft was No. 26 overall, but the source states No. 27.
- Ref 26 makes no mention of Charles Alexander; I would recommend additionally citing ref 24 in footnote F, since that one does mention Alexander.
- Adding
{{rp|page(s)=n}}
after each citation to ref 24 wouldn't hurt, just so the reader knows which page(s) specifically to look for the information that the source is being used to verify.
- Ref 4 is hosted on the website for USA Today, but the Cincinatti Enquirer is named under the byline... should the source be credited to the Cincinatti Enquirer, with a
- Source formatting is consistent across the board.
- All sources are reliable enough for the information they are being used to verify.
- The refs to the Chicago Tribune, AP News, and United Press International (and probably USA Today as well) should use
- After finishing the above source review, I decided to do an image review as well. Image review passes, details below:
- All images that are present contribute encyclopedic value to the listicle.
- All images have suitable alt text.
- Sourcing for each image checks out, as do the sources for the captions.
- The captions themselves are well-written.
- All images are appropriately licensed for either public domain or Creative Commons.
- Excellent work once again, Josh! I have no concerns with the images, and only a few quibbles with the sources; once those are resolved (or adequately explained), I look forward to supporting. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 23:45, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- A couple minor things I forgot to mention:
- "as a result of the 1970 AFL–NFL merger.[4][5][3]" – the refs should be listed in ascending order here.
- "Only one of the team's first-round picks ... have been elected" – have → has
- Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 23:56, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The refs to the Chicago Tribune, AP News, and United Press International (and probably USA Today as well) should use cite news instead of cite web .
– Done.Ref 4 is hosted on the website for USA Today, but the Cincinatti Enquirer is named under the byline... should the source be credited to the Cincinatti Enquirer, with a via parameter added to mention USA Today?
– I actually hadn't noticed that and skipped the middle man by replacing the ref with the version from the Enquirer.Footnote A, cited to ref 24, states that the last pick in the first draft was No. 26 overall, but the source states No. 27.
– That's a definite mistake on my part. The mistake stems from the wording of "second and last pick in the round". Normally there'd be 26 picks in the round (1 per team) and I didn't factor in that this added a pick to the end of the round. Fixed.Ref 26 makes no mention of Charles Alexander; I would recommend additionally citing ref 24 in footnote F, since that one does mention Alexander.
– Normally it'd be fine not to mention Alexander, as the notes are mostly about how the pick was acquired / why the team's position in the draft changed. I use the reference at the top of the column to verify the player who was picked, their position, college, etc. So, while it's not explicitly cited in that note, it is verifiable based on the column reference. With that said, I noticed that my source I used didn't explicitly state the pick number, which is something I'm always trying to verify. As such, I did add another source to verify the info (from the Pro Football Hall of Fame).Adding after each citation to ref 24 wouldn't hurt, just so the reader knows which page(s) specifically to look for the information that the source is being used to verify.
– Personally I think the small page range (226–232) and the numbered subheadings for drafts in the source should be straight forward enough to make the information easy to find."as a result of the 1970 AFL–NFL merger.[4][5][3]" – the refs should be listed in ascending order here.
– Is that an actual thing noted down anywhere? I personally prefer to use the references in the order that they would be verifying information for the sentence. For instance, if the lowest numbered ref (let's say 3), verified the end of the sentence, I would want to use it as the last reference despite the order. That may just be a stylistic preference of mine, but I'm now really curious if that's an MOS thing we should adhere to?"Only one of the team's first-round picks ... have been elected" – have → has
– Done.
- I believe/hope I've addressed all of your concerns, pending a reply to a couple. Thanks so much for providing a source and image review and the helpful feedback. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:27, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- It seems you are correct about the ref ordering—I had seen it brought up as an issue in another FLC, which led me to point it out when noticing it in subsequent reviews I've conducted, but upon double-checking WP:CITEORDER, I read that both approaches are acceptable and it's all down to stylistic preference. All other fixes and explanations look/sound good to me. All that needs to be done now is for archived URLs to be added for the updated ref 4 and the newly added ref 27, but that is minor and easily fixable—the source review passes and I am pleased to support this FLC. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 18:50, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- A couple minor things I forgot to mention:
Comments
- Support promotion. No issues with the text or table accessibility. A couple of refs are missing archive links, but that's not a deal breaker. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:15, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for the review @MPGuy2824! I manually saved the two pages missing archive links to the Internet Archive. They should be available to IABot in about an hour and I'll be sure to re-run the bot to make sure that's addressed. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:00, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support from Gonzo_fan2007
- There would be a few recommendations (spelling out the positions, shorter See also section, etc) but we have discussed these and I respect your consistent approach.
- Recommend adding File:Ja'Marr Chase.jpg as a recent and well-known draft pick.
Support, nice work! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 13:53, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Good call, I've gone ahead and added that image. Thanks for the review and suggestion @Gonzo fan2007! Hey man im josh (talk) 16:32, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - great work once again! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:56, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- 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) 00:10, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- 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) 00:25, 3 June 2024 (UTC) [3].[reply]
List of accolades received by The Boy and the Heron
- Nominator(s): TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 04:58, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Boy and the Heron (2023) is the latest — and potentially last — animated feature film from Hayao Miyazaki and Studio Ghibli. It collected a total of 27 wins among its 64 notable award nominations; among them were wins at the 96th Academy Awards and 77th British Academy Film Awards, which had seldom, if ever, recognized Japanese animations in the past. I hope you'll enjoy the read, and I look forward to hearing your comments! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 04:58, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: I am a first-time nominator at FLC, so feel free to leave me detailed feedback or conduct in-depth spot checks as necessary. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 04:58, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
DBC
- Tables need captions, which allow screen reader software to jump straight to named tables without having to read out all of the text before it each time. Visual captions can be added by putting
|+ caption_text
as the first line of the table code; if that caption would duplicate a nearby section header, you can make it screen-reader-only by putting|+ {{sronly|caption_text}}
instead. - Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:24, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Sgubaldo
- Infobox
- In the infobox, please count each win as having a prior nomination as well (e.g. for Academy Awards, it's currently counted as 1 win and 0 nominations, so change that to 1 win and 1 nomination).
- Done. —TS
- I'm not sure if it's a standard but, in all other FLs I've seen, runner-up and 3rd places are also counted as wins.
- I'm not very inclined to do this, especially since several sources clearly delineate the winners and runners-up in separate sections. —TS
- In the infobox, please count each win as having a prior nomination as well (e.g. for Academy Awards, it's currently counted as 1 win and 0 nominations, so change that to 1 win and 1 nomination).
- Table
- Checking the IMDb link,, it's missing a seemingly notable award from the Turkish Film Critics Association (not a dealbreaker if you can't find any sources).
- That's exactly the issue I encountered, which is why this wasn't included. It's worth noting that an article for this yearly event has not been created since 2011, leading me to believe it may no longer be a notable awards ceremony. —TS
- I feel the article would look a lot nicer if the awards in the table were listed in alphabetical order already without needing to sort by clicking on the column.
- Done. Chronological order made it easier to collaborate with other editors while the film was still receiving awards, but I must admit to also preferring alphabetical order. —TS
- Checking the IMDb link,, it's missing a seemingly notable award from the Turkish Film Critics Association (not a dealbreaker if you can't find any sources).
- Lead
- [...] second hand-drawn production to do so after Miyazaki's 2001 film Spirited Away. ==> This may need a comma after 'so'.
- This seems gramatically correct as is; not done for now. Feel free to correct me if I'm missing something. —TS
- The film was released on July 14, 2023, by Toho. ==> The film was released theatrically in Japan on July 14, 2023, by Toho.
- Done. —TS
- After that sentence, I'd add a bit about its release internationally. Perhaps roughly along the lines of "The film had its international premiere at the 2023 Toronto International Film Festival on September 7, and had its theatrical release in the United States on December 8.", but you can write that however you want.
- Done. —TS
- [...] second hand-drawn production to do so after Miyazaki's 2001 film Spirited Away. ==> This may need a comma after 'so'.
- References
- The Box Office Mojo reference had BOM as the publisher, but BOM should be the website, and IMDb should be the publisher; also, if you want you can use Template:Cite Box Office Mojo.
- Done. —TS
- Add Fandango Media as publisher for the Rotten Tomatoes reference.
- Done. —TS
- The Box Office Mojo reference had BOM as the publisher, but BOM should be the website, and IMDb should be the publisher; also, if you want you can use Template:Cite Box Office Mojo.
Most of these are pretty minor, well done on your first FLC nomination. Sgubaldo (talk) 16:19, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I appreciate the feedback, Sgubaldo! All comments addressed. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 18:25, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Three More
- In Note e, I don't think you need "(all 2023)" considering it's the Top Ten Films of the Year.
- Done. —TS
- Ref. 31 is missing an author (Kelly Ng)
- Done. —TS
- At the 77th British Academy Film Awards, Miyazaki and Suzuki received Best Animated Film, marking the first time a Japanese-language film had received the award ==> At the 77th British Academy Film Awards, Miyazaki and Suzuki won Best Animated Film, marking the first time a Japanese-language film received the award; just to avoid repetition of received in the same sentence
- Done. —TS
- Two Nitpicks
- Wikilink Florida Film Critics Circle in Ref. 28 (and change from website to publisher in both Ref. 28 and Ref. 29 to make consistent with all the other critics circle/society/association references)
- Thanks for calling these out; I made a few passes to get all of the citations standardized before nominating, but evidently couldn't catch everything! Done. —TS
- Ref. 2, Ref. 40 and Ref. 43 have Anime News Network as a publisher while Ref. 6 has it as a website; make them consistent.
- Done. —TS
- A comment on the infobox
- One of the reasons I included the point about runners-up and 3rd places being counted as wins is because Template:infobox awards list automatically includes the note:
"Certain award groups do not simply award one winner. They recognize several different recipients, have runners-up, and have third place. Since this is a specific recognition and is different from losing an award, runner-up mentions are considered wins in this award tally. For simplification and to avoid errors, each award in this list has been presumed to have had a prior nomination.".
- I appreciate that this is not necessarily the best way to do it (and maybe something to bring up on the template page) but, for the purposes of this FLC, I'd like them to be included as wins. I'm not going to die on this hill though so, after the five comments above are resolved, I'll support.
- Ah, I'd forgotten about the note baked into the infobox. This seems like a fairly problematic consequence of the template being inflexible, but now may not be an appropriate moment to propose changes to it for one article. Done for now. —TS
- Sgubaldo (talk) 20:12, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Sgubaldo: Responses above. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 04:37, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - I've got nothing other than what was sorted above. Great work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:18, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks as always, ChrisTheDude! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 04:19, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support as this is a nearly perfect list. Chompy Ace 21:54, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Greatly appreciated, ChompyAce! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 04:19, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Source review
I'll do the source review. Numbers from this revision [4].
- Refs 9 and 10 have contradicting numbers.
- Refs 11-13, 28, 31, 44 are good.
- Ref 15 Good
- Ref 23 Good
- Ref 28 Good
- Ref 33 Good
- Ref 36 Good
- Ref 40 Good
- Ref 44 Good
- Ref 48 Good
- Ref 55 Good
- Ref 56 Good.
Everything is archived so just clarify the box office thing and it should be good.Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 20:05, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Good to see you, Oli, and thanks for the review! I've removed the Box Office Mojo reference for now as it seems to be out of date — presumably not displaying the film's recent earnings in China. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 22:08, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Good job Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 22:42, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Noting for the record that I've replaced the source yet again, this time with one from Deadline Hollywood, as The Numbers seems to have fallen slightly out of date as well. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 22:48, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Image review – The lead image has an appropriate free license, caption and alt text. No issues here from what I can see. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:14, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Appreciate it, Giants2008! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 01:52, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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 22 sources match what they are being cited for
Feedback:
- Would writing "Third place" instead of "3rd place" be more appropriate for the December 11, 2023, IndieWire Critics Poll result?
- Sure, why not? The relevant guideline is neutral on this specific situation, but there seems to be a general preference for ordinals being spelled out. —TS
- Is there a reason you're using linebreaks to put references on new lines? I don't believe this is a best practice and, while I don't believe this is your intention, it sort of looks as though you're trying to separate the references into their own cells.
- The references are in the correct cells to verify the information in their rows as far as I'm aware. I'm using
<br>
tags to prevent the column from being unnecessarily widened when multiple footnotes are being used, emulating the style I've seen used on many other lists. If you know a better way to do that, do let me know and I'll apply it. —TS
- The references are in the correct cells to verify the information in their rows as far as I'm aware. I'm using
- Refs column should
abbr
instead, since some columns have multiple references- Done. —TS
- Ref 25 – Change Dallas-Fort Worth Film Critics Association to Dallas–Fort Worth Film Critics Association
- Done. —TS
- Ref 27 – Add date of December 21, 2024
- Done. —TS
- Ref 45 – No publish date listed at the source. Archive date should also probably be updated, given that relevant information has since been added to the live page.
- Done. —TS
- Ref 52 – Not seeing a date at the target that matches up with the December 17, 2023, date listed. Perhaps this was mistakenly added based on a portion of the source stating nominations were announced that day?
- That might have been the case; removed. —TS
I too did a source review, just because you did one for me and I figured it'd be good to help you by being extra thorough with your first (of many I hope) FLC. Very good stuff for your first go of it. Ping me when you reply please. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:42, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Appreciate the comments, Josh! Responses are above. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 17:26, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:32, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- 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) 00:15, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.