Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hotline Miami 2: Wrong Number/archive1

Hotline Miami 2: Wrong Number

 * Nominator(s): Negative  MP1  23:48, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

This article is about the Hotline Miami 2: Wrong Number, a top-down shooter indie game released in 2015. While not being influential to indie games as a whole like its predecessor, this game is still particularly for being refused classification in Australia due to a scene which depicted sexual assault, where it remains banned to this day. I've been working on this article basically since I started editing Wikipedia, and got it to GA status with back in October with an additional pre-FAC peer review being done by  earlier this month. After eight months of work, exhausting all sources of substance that I have been able to find, and two reviews being conducted from other editors, I believe that this article meets the FA criteria. This is my first time nominating an article for FAC, and I look forward to reading and addressing any comments. Negative MP1  23:48, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Comments Support from Panini!
I don't know anything about this game going in, so I should give good insight on making sure explanations make sense. I did play this game called SUPERHOTline Miami in middle school which was a blend of Superhot and Hotline Miami. I remember it being fun. I played a few technology classes that had a row of computers in the back to play on. It was pretty difficult game, probably not because it was actually hard, but the computers were just so slow. And computers were doing real good around this time, they just had some cruddy, outdated computers. Some of their DVD slots were busted and couldn't even eject. Unlike computers, however, those weren't doing real good, and we never used DVDs for educational purposes. I did in elementary school, though.

What am I doing here? Oh, right.


 * Lead
 * "The game takes place before, during, and after the events of Hotline Miami..." - Oh boy. I hope I don't get a headache.
 * "...the player is tasked with defeating every single enemy inside through any means possible..." - But the couples are fine. "single" can be dropped.
 * Done.
 * "...and was confirmed to be in development via Twitter..." - I suggest specifying when (what year, or both year month if you need to discern dates) instead of how ("via Twitter"), since the means of announcement isn't as important.
 * Done.
 * "A localized version released in Japan on June 25, as part of Hotline Miami: Collected Edition. An Android port was released on August 4 of the same year." Is there any gameplay or quality changes in these ports that need to be specified?
 * Besides Collected Edition being localized into Japanese, to my knowledge no.
 * "...received generally positive reviews from critics, with reviewers praising the soundtrack, but having divisive opinions on the story and gameplay..." - Story and gameplay are pretty much what makes a game a game. Metaritic reads "generally positive reviews" and whatever they say is always used in video game leads; stating "mixed reviews on story and gameplay" suggests a 50/50, so if the game were attending school it would fail. In short what I suggest is getting more specific with what was liked and disliked: when it comes to story, did critics like the characters but hate the plot? With gameplay, did they like the mechanics but not the combat? Stuff like that. For example, my first FA reads "Critical reception of the combat system was mixed; while praised for its innovation, there was criticism for its lack of difficulty and purpose."
 * As weird as this sounds when the game has a 74/100 on Metacritic, this is basically how the game was received by the major outlets that I included in the Reception section. I've specified that critics were more divisive towards the ending than the story itself though.
 * Okay no, scratch that, I reread the section and I don't know why I did this. Reverting that part but the point remains the same.
 * I haven't read the rest of the article yet (I'm reading top to the bottom because that's how you read) but from a quick glance there seems to be more development info that can be mentioned in the lead. Most people usually give a detailed announcement to release timeline in their leads but I think that doesn't give enough WP:DUEWEIGHT to the development section, which usually details why the developers made certain design choices. Does this game introduce any new mechanics? If so, why did they add it? Stuff like that. Luigi's Mansion: Dark Moon's third lead paragraph details development details if you need an example, but keep in mind the development section of that article is like a mile long and you might not have nearly as much details.
 * Yeah there's nothing I can really place into the lead except that the game was designed to be the last in the series, which I've added. The game doesn't have that much specific development information.
 * Infobox looks like it's fully cited in the body from a glance.


 * Gameplay
 * Yuck, too much blood in that image. I hate it! Get rid of it.
 * I can't tell if this is a legitimate review comment or not, but this game and its predecessor are known for violence, so having a gameplay screenshot that does not show blood may as well not be possible.
 * You do not need to write out Hotline Miami 2: Wrong Number in every instance it appears outside the first; just Wrong Number will suffice. It looks like you only do that at the beginning of every section though, which is fine. I think I do that too? I can't remember. I haven't written about video games in a while.
 * I think you should link level (video game) on "broken down into several stages" instead of "divided into several chapters". Unless I'm missing something about how these levels are organized?
 * Stages and Chapters refer to two different things here. A chapter is the actual level, which typically takes place in a building, whilst a stage is an individual floor of the building.
 * Interesting. What you've specified here about the floors in the building I think would be good to specify in the article, since it's not the the traditional "video game stage" per se.
 * Made the specification, hopefully that doesn't count as original research.
 * This section is very solid.


 * Synopsis
 * "The plot of Hotline Miami 2: Wrong Number is told out of order, before, and after the events of the original, focusing on events in 1985, 1989, and 1991." - Following "out of order" should be a colon. Also, the lead specifies the game also takes place "during".
 * I suggest linking Russian mafia and neo-nationalism.
 * Done.
 * You do link the former eventually, but it should be linked in its first instance.
 * Delinked in this instance.


 * Is the fact that Jake is obese necessary to understanding his character? As in, is it important to the plot?
 * No, it was a description of the character himself. Removed this bit.
 * Following "...member of 50 Blessings" should be one more semicolon, not a comma
 * Done.
 * "As they make their way through the building, they're Colonel - having apparently gone insane - murders..." - You should use em-dashes (—) here instead of regular ol' dashes. What's the difference? I don't know, they're longer or something. Why does it matter? I don't know, they're longer or something.
 * Done.


 * Development
 * I feel "patching" is too jargon-y compared to "fixing bugs"
 * Changed to the latter.
 * The sentence at the end of paragraph one is pretty long and full of a lot of engine names. Can you split it in two?
 * Done.
 * "The game was designed to be the final game in the series" -> "The game was designed to be last in the series
 * Done.
 * Remove the hyperlink from cutscene at the end of "Music" as it is linked above.
 * Done.
 * Reception
 * Specify "Steven Burns" in his first mention, not just Burns.
 * Done.
 * Merge ref 49 and 54, they are the same
 * See below response.
 * Actually, it looks like most if not all of the review sources have two duplicates: one for the table and one for the body. Most of the table refs already have ref names so hopefully this will be an easy fix.
 * Opposite of that actually because I edit in visual editor. I'll fix this soon but not in the same edit as where I'm changing everything else.
 * This section consists of individual opinion after individual opinion. It's okay to summarize similar reviewer thoughts into one sentence or two with multiple refs if they share the same opinion, similar to what you do in the intro sentence to each paragraph. For an example of what I mean here's this format I made a while back for reference. It's pretty outdated to me nowadays (and in general, USGamer no longer exists), but it shows what I mean by summarizing. See also this essay that does a much better job.
 * I attempted to follow that essay as much as I could, but I can make some adjustments or rewrites to the section to follow it better shortly.
 * I'm unsure what "Rezzed" is.
 * Specified that it's an expo.
 * "Many viewed it as a "deeply troubling moment in an otherwise excellent demo" - This implies many said this exact sentence. I would change it to "Many viewed it as what ____ referred to as a..."
 * Done.

I publish my section reviews in real time. More coming. Panini! • 🥪 23:13, 26 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Alongside all adjustments I made yesterday, I just did a full article restructure to define sources with source mode in Reflist instead of the visual editor format (defining sources as ":1" or etc.), which should eliminate the duplicated references in the Reception section. I've also made some adjustments to the Reception section writing. Negative  MP1  05:34, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * If I had noticed your note about the visual editor earlier I would have offered to fix them for you! Sorry to leave you with a hard job. But, hey, FAC is hard.
 * I wish I could sit down and do a bit more thorough review but I've been short on time recently, and I'm just about to fly upstate very soon. One more note about references; Destructoid is listed as situational per WP:VG/RS and goes on a case-by-case basis when it comes to the author of the review. If the author is a credited and reliable one it can be kept, but is rarely is. If you can prove they're a credible source then it can stay at a FA level, but in FAC Destructoid is usually cut. This isn't too big of a deal for you since the only use of them outside the review table is a one-off statement. Other than that, the article is rad! I also left one comment above. Panini!  • 🥪 23:41, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you! As for the visual editor thing, no worries as it was honestly long overdue to convert the references over to source, I don't think I'm going back to visual editing after seeing how much more convenient the 2017 wikitext editor is. Anyways, the only Destructoid reference in use here is a review from Chris Carter, whom isn't just a staff editor, but is the managing editor/reviews director of the site. The review is probably acceptable to include because of that, but if more people review this article and object to the use of it then I can supplement it, the review is only used for the soundtrack section at the moment anyways. Negative  MP1  00:47, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
 * For holiday reasons I can't verify Chris Carter, but I won't wait for someone else to do so. I support this nomination. Panini!  • 🥪 21:31, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Coordinator comment
Three weeks in and just the single general support. Unless this nomination makes significant further progress towards a consensus to promote over the next three or four days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:05, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Support from Vami!
me review me review – ♠Vamí _IV†♠  05:26, 12 January 2024‎ (UTC)

Welcome to FAC, comrade! I'm glad to simultaneously be helping this great game get more much-earned recognition, pay tribute to a dearly departed friend who loved it by doing so, and helping out a new friend take the next big step of his Wikipedia journey. At first, I was going to limit this to a source review, since those are usually the biggest hangup for FACs—at least in my experience. But since it's your first time here and I was doing a complete text-source integrity check rather than just spot checks, I was looking at the prose anyway so I thought, "why not just do a prose review too?" Usually I don't do this since it feels like taking two bites out of the apple, you know? Anyway. Uh. I hope you can forgive this mountain of comments! – ♠Vamí _IV†♠  12:09, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Prose comments

 * Lead
 * Every word after "them" can be cut with no loss in quality.
 * Done.
 * Recommend addition of "for the game" at the end.
 * Done.
 * You started the previous sentence very similarly, with "Shortly after..." Consider "When the proposed length..."
 * Done.
 * This is one of those funny little moments in English where the grammatically correct form of the sentence is to have a double had. "all the concepts they had had from..." Or you could tweak this sentence a bit, something like "had during/leftover/cut/etc."
 * Done.
 * Having looked at the reviews myself now, I remember the bugginess of the game being criticized, too.
 * I do not remember any discussions about the game being glitchy in substansive amounts to warrant a mention in the lead or a unique reception paragraph.


 * Gameplay
 * Knocking out is not killing. Not immediately, anyway. The fix here perhaps is probably to revisit the preceding sentence and render it as
 * I think I fixed this?
 * Comma required between large and open.
 * Done.
 * The player's abilities or the player character's?
 * Done.
 * "until succeeding" here is superfluous here since the alternative to success in this game is death.
 * Done.
 * Delete.
 * Done.
 * See spot-check.


 * Synopsis
 * I think I would have used "was" here since most of the game takes place later. The war chapters give context to the not-war chapters.
 * Done.
 * That Jake is violent is obvious just by being one of the playable characters. Suggest cutting "violent and".
 * Done.


 * Development
 * What? This is the first use of a kind of date in the article. And when did he announce any DLC?
 * Fixed this by stating a date (which I assume is what you're asking for)
 * The whole sentence feels unwieldy.
 * Fixed up.
 * Rewrite this.
 * Done.
 * Very long.
 * Chopped up.
 * Also overly long and unwieldy.
 * Condensed.
 * Rewrite in a way that deletes "to scramble".
 * Rewritten.
 * How about ?
 * Done.


 * Marketing and release
 * Replace "here" with "at E3 2013.
 * Done.
 * ...what kind of trailer? A promotional trailer or a physical trailer parked outside the venue?
 * I think I made this more clear?
 * Specify.
 * Don't know what specifically to specify so I specified both.
 * Pretend that the reader does not know what Payday 2 is. What is Payday 2?
 * I feel as if it'd be implied by "playable character" that it's a video game. Either way I specified "video game", assuming that's what you're asking for.
 * You should clarify that "the game" here is Payday 2.
 * Done.
 * Huh?
 * I think this just happens where my brain fails and I end up leaving leftovers from past rewrites. I've fixed this.
 * Suggest
 * Done.


 * Reception
 * This simultaneously confuses me and does not feel encyclopedic.
 * I think I fixed this?
 * This can be condensed.
 * Done.
 * The second paragraph generally needs to be whipped into shape.
 * Done, I think?
 * As I note below, the claim is not representative of the sources cited. I suggest, instead,
 * Done.

I must apologize, but I'm going to rip this section to pieces.
 * Sexual assault scene
 * Completely fine with me, I wrote this section whilst short on time.


 * Rewrite, too many words and some contradiction. If the rape victim is knocked out, she must be unconscious; how then does she resist? Rather than mention her waking up or something, I would instead advise cutting "knock her out". This will open the door to further shrinking of this prose to something better.
 * Trimmed up a bit to hopefully make it better.
 * Huh?
 * Fixed.
 * No need to give Wedin's first name here.
 * Removed.
 * Use a quotation here, rather than seeming to take a side.
 * Done.
 * Cut "they have", the sentence will be more clinical without it.
 * Done.
 * Why is it important? Why are you saying this in Wikipedia's voice?
 * I'm relaying what the source says, I don't know why it's important either.
 * Then you've reflected the bias of the source. Rephrase. – ♠Vamí _IV†♠  00:15, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I just completely removed it since I literally could not think of a way to make it sound any better.
 * "Grave mistake" needs to be in quotations; it is lifted from Reference [6].
 * Done.
 * The back half of this needs to be rewritten. See my note on Reference [49] below.
 * Will do this when I tackle the source review.
 * Rewrite this. Let Budgor speak for her(?)self; use quotations to communicate her(?) thoughts on the game.
 * Done.
 * Pleased to Support now. – ♠Vamí _IV†♠  22:39, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Source review
All references are from reliable sources, barring the YouTube one which is a trailer and a Steam forum conversation(???). I advise removing this (see below). Otherwise, all good. – ♠Vamí _IV†♠  12:09, 12 January 2024 (UTC)


 * I'll have to get to this on a different edit but for now I have infact removed the Steam community post. The YouTube video however is from Eurogamer and I believe should be acceptable. λ Negative  MP1  18:29, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

As I said, here is the complete spot check of every in-line citation to/for all 61 in-line citations in the article.


 * 1) Both uses are legit.
 * 2) The source doesn't really support the passage, "Both the player and enemies are not resilient, and it may take only one attack from one to kill the other immediately. To compensate, the player is able to quickly restart the current stage after death, allowing the player to rethink and fine-tune their strategy until succeeding." It's more of an expansion of what the source says on the topic of the gameplay, which is not good. It also doesn't support the passage about the AI being unpredictable, but does support the clause after that about enemy types like the dogs. Danny O'Dwyer (hello old friend) does not say that the game's ST is "just as good as the first game's."; he says the music is "absolutely outstanding". When he does refer back to the first game's ST, it's to mention returning contributors like Perturbator. O'Dwyer also does not identify the ST as "the best aspect of the game", but he does specifically praise it and mention it at the end of his review in the pros/cons. Additionally, the bit about the possibility of non-lethal takedowns is supported by [4], so the use of [2] with [3] can also be removed. Thus, I recommend cutting [3].
 * 3) Like [2], this source does not support an unpredictable and arbitrary AI. It says that AI is "inconsistent" and that there are a lot of bugs; it does not imply that either is intentional and it certainly isn't a compliment. Does not identify the ST as "the best aspect of the game."
 * 4) Only in passing supports the existence of a letter-grade for levels.
 * 5) Doesn't mention any letter-grade at all; instead points out flaws in the scoring system. Quotations do not adhere to MOS:PMC, which states, "Quotations ... must be faithfully reproduced. This is referred to as the principle of minimal change. Where there is good reason to change the wording, bracket the changed text".
 * 6) No mention of letter-grading; just that the game grades your performance.
 * 7) No mention of character or weapon unlocks.
 * 8) Source says nothing about weapons having less ammo.
 * 9) Only thing this source supports unfortunately is that a level editor exists as part of the game.
 * 10) Both uses are legit.
 * 11) Supports everything it's used for except the clause "with Dennaton focusing on including ideas they were unable to use in the first game".
 * 12) Both uses are legit.
 * 13) All good here.
 * 14) All good here. However, I think the wording "which sold 130,000 copies in its first seven weeks," is a little close to the source article and could be cut, since the very next sentence talks about the financial success of the first game.
 * 15) Both uses are legit. They are also right next to each other, with no other reference/in-line citation between them.
 * 16) All good here.
 * 17) I'll give a pass for this one.
 * 18) Delete this. [19] has everything this has without being a Steam forum thread.
 * 19) No problems here.
 * 20) All good here.
 * 21) I am not jazzed about using the store page to prove how many tracks are on the ST but beggars can't be choosers. Replace with something better if you can.
 * 22) McCarthy describes the use of "You Are the Blood" as "harrowing", not "unforgettable". Compare: "One that's always stayed with me is Hotline Miami 2's harrowing use of Castanets' "You Are The Blood" in its end credits" versus "But rarely do video games have excellent musical moments: a point in time punctuated with music to make it unforgettable." Please change this.
 * 23) All good here. Like [15], there are two uses of [23] that are right next to each other without an in-between citation.
 * 24) This is legit.
 * 25) This too.
 * 26) This too.
 * 27) Doesn't mention a delay; this mentions the possibility of a delay.
 * 28) All good here.
 * 29) Ditto.
 * 30) Ditto.
 * 31) Ditto.
 * 32) All good. Same note to this as [15] and [23], though.
 * 33) All good here.
 * 34) Ditto.
 * 35) I'm just going to assume good conduct with this one :)
 * 36) Good enough.
 * 37) All good here.
 * 38) Ditto.
 * 39) Ditto.
 * 40) Ditto.
 * 41) Ditto.
 * 42) Ditto.
 * 43) Ditto.
 * 44) Ditto.
 * 45) Ditto.
 * 46) Ditto.
 * 47) Ditto.
 * 48) Ditto.
 * 49) Mostly good. Myers does not say the player's actions as the Pig Butcher are justified. Myers is mocking the game for a lazy copout.
 * 50) Good enough.
 * 51) Checks out.
 * 52) Good, but you lifted a line from the source without quoting it. Please revise.
 * 53) Good, but as the article presently is you close-paraphrase from this source. It would be better to just quote it.
 * 54) The source does not mention a red light over a black background. It does mention red underwear, though, and other details of the rape.
 * 55) Ditto.
 * 56) Ditto.
 * 57) Ditto.
 * 58) Ditto.
 * 59) Ditto, but move this to the end of "the game became briefly available in Australia via the Nintendo eShop,".
 * 60) All good here.
 * 61) What I can say of the usage of this source is that at least the thesis of the source is communicated.

I believe all issues have been patched (most of them just boiled down to me completely cutting text due to lack of better sourcing, though) except the following:
 * There is unfortunately no alternative for 21.
 * from 54: "This visual depiction of implied sexual violence is emphasised by it being mid-screen, with a red backdrop pulsating and the remainder of the screen being surrounded by black." what's in the article is simply just paraphrasing.

Please tell me if I missed any issues pointed out in the source review that needed fixing but I think I got what needed to be fixed. λ Negative  MP1  05:55, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * All good on this front now. – ♠Vamí _IV†♠  22:39, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Comments by David Fuchs
Forthcoming. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:45, 13 January 2024 (UTC) -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 21:32, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delay, but I've got to oppose based on prose. The article is much improved from where it was before the FAC, but I think it's still tough to read and grok if you aren't intimately familiar with the content already, and could use a lot of trimming for content that doesn't strengthen the writing. A selection of some issues:
 * "The game takes place before, during, and after the events of Hotline Miami, with the majority of it focusing on the aftermath of Jacket's massacres against the Russian mafia in Miami. "—who is Jacket? We might not know anything about Hotline Miami 2 except it's a sequel, why is the most important thing for us to learn its time period vis a vis the original (which we also might not have content for?)
 * "In each level of the game, the player is tasked with defeating every enemy inside" every enemy inside what?
 * "Shortly after the release and success of Hotline Miami, Dennaton began work on creating downloadable content for the game. When the proposed length of it surpassed that of the base game, the project was turned into a standalone sequel and was confirmed to be in development via Twitter in December 2012." This is just a really weird, awkward way of saying that the game grew out of downloadable content plans for the original game, smashing the mention of its development on Twitter in at the end even though it doesn't really connect with the rest of the sentence.
 * I don't necessarily think the use of ex. is directly in violation of MOS:ABB, but it's also not pleasant to read either.
 * "In most chapters, the player is tasked with defeating every enemy with a variety of melee and ranged attacks. " What about the other chapters?
 * "Both the player and enemies are not resilient, and it may take only one attack from one to kill the other immediately." Why do we have this repetitious "one.. one" structure when you could just say "Both the player and enemies can be felled from a single attack" or similar?
 * "additionally, enemy AI is inconsistent" I don't know what this means in this context.
 * "Exclusively for versions of the game released on Steam," I'm confused why this is plural. How many versions of the game are there on Steam?
 * Work with User:Tony1/Redundancy exercises: removing fluff from your writing would be useful for cleanups throughout the article, e.g., "Additional tools are provided to allow the players to create their own cutscenes and dialog".
 * "The trials are widely publicized, resulting in the creation of a film depicting Jacket as "The Pig Butcher", as well as journalist Evan Wright writing a book on the killings while trying to learn more about the events as his marriage and finances are strained. " Holy excessively long sentences, Batman! (Also, the final part could be read as his marriage and finances are strained as a result of trying to learn about the events, or his finances prompted him to write the book. Unclear.)
 * The second "paragraph" of the characters section is technically a single 164-word sentence.
 * "The game was made in Game Maker 7, the same engine used for the first game. Additionally, Abstraction Games ported the game to their own SilverWare engine using their Game Maker conversion program GameBaker. This replaced the Phyre Engine used for the first game." I have no idea why the game engine is being ported, or what the Phyre engine is, or how this is relevant.
 * "The success of Hotline Miami was noted to lead to the success of the artists behind the game's soundtrack. " — awkward construction, repetitious "success... success", and arguably overstating the content from the source (which mentions exposure and posits it helped the artists, but doesn't demonstrate that was the case.)


 * If I got to fixing these issues within a couple of days would you consider striking the oppose or looking at the article any further? Currently a bit busy but I can probably fit it in as it seems like I could fix these issues without too much issue. λ Negative  MP1  17:36, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm always happy to revisit. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs  talk 19:23, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi David, I am looking to close and wanted to check if you were still opposed to promotion. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:33, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The article is improved but I still think it needs further copyediting, and am maintaining my oppose at this point. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs  talk 17:23, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Image review
Some of the photo ALTs seem to describe what the image is, instead of substituting for its purpose in the text. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:17, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * File:Hotline Miami 2 cover.png: Licence, rationale and use seem fine for me.
 * File:Hotline Miami 2 Gameplay.png: The use rationale needs a bit more explanation of why this image significantly adds to the understanding of the article.
 * Expanded.
 * File:Jonatan Söderström (Cactus) - Game Developers Conference 2010 (2).jpg: Image placement and licence seem OK.
 * File:Roller Mobster (Carpenter Brut).ogg: Use-case a bit borderline, but licence and use seem OK to me.
 * File:RTX 2014 - Playing Hotline Miami 2 (14583610172).jpg: I think this file needs a commons:Template:De minimis warning, but it seems OK.
 * Added.
 * File:Hotline Miami 2 Rape Scene.png: The use rationale needs a bit more explanation of why this image significantly adds to the understanding of the article.
 * I feel as if what can be used in the rationale is already there. If necessary it can be removed instead, since the rationale is basically all it can be.
 * I've addressed the above issues and added improved alt text to the images, which describe more of what the image actually contains now. λ Negative  MP1  17:29, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi Jo-Jo, how is this one looking now? Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:30, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Seems like this passes on images, then. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:31, 29 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Nearly six weeks in, several in depth reviews but a lack of consensus to promote regrettably means that I am archiving this nomination. The usual two-week hiatus regarding any further nominations will apply. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:04, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Gog the Mild (talk) 12:04, 30 January 2024 (UTC)