Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/It Was Hot, We Stayed in the Water/archive1
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by FrB.TG via FACBot (talk) 4 November 2024 [1].
- Nominator(s): — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 18:38, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
At the turn of the century, Phil Elverum of the Microphones released the folk album It Was Hot, We Stayed in the Water. Although frequently overlooked in the following years (overshadowed by its younger sibling), the album still received critical acclaim, going on to be "widely regarded as [an] indie pop classic" and inspire "weirdo singer/songwriter[s]" everywhere. Thanks to @Gen. Quon: for mentorship on this nomination. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 18:38, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- Support I worked with PerfectSoundWhatever to punch up the article prior to this nom, and I think it's in a solid spot. The references are good, the prose (imho) reads nicely, and the topic is comprehensive without being unnecessarily exhaustive.--Gen. Quon[Talk] 00:20, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
750h
[edit]Will review. 750h+ 14:25, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- lead
- make the lead two paragraphs (per MOS:LEADLENGTH)
- The album was recorded on analogue tape ==> "The album was recorded on analog tape" (AmEng)
- The album was recorded on analog tape, and Elverum embraced the medium's technical imperfections. ==> "Recorded on analog tape, Elverum embraced the medium's technical imperfections"
- background and recording
- came to increasingly trust his musical abilities. ==> "came to trust his musical abilities increasingly."
- Prior to It Was Hot's release ==> "Before It Was Hot's release" (conciseness)
- between September 24, 1999, and March 6, 2000 at Dub add a comma after "2000"
- on analogue tape, which ==> "on analog tape, which"
- music and themes
- merge the first paragraph and second paragraph (single-sentence paragraphs are generally unfavorable)
- release and reception
- droning, distorted guitars and organs" ==> "droning, distorted guitars[,] and organs"
That's all i got. Fine work on the article! 750h+ 08:32, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- @750h+: Thank you for the review! All comments implemented. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 17:39, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- Support. 750h+ 00:05, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
Comments
[edit]- ""The Glow" acts as the album's climax and introduces the concept of the "glow", which was explored in more depth on 2001's The Glow Pt. 2." - this reads a tiny bit oddly, as you refer to this album in the present tense but then a later album in past tense. Maybe this could be dodged by saying "which would be explored".......?
- "as well as the extended play Window:." - is that colon part of the title, rather than a typo.....?
- Check for overlinking - drones is linked multiple times, as are K Records, Phil Elverum, the Microphones, PopMatters, and more....
- That's all I got. Great work overall! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:16, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- @ChrisTheDude: Thanks for the comments! "was" changed to "would be". The colon is intentional.
- Per MOS:REPEATLINK, repeat links are allowed if in different sections. I don't think removing many of the links you mentioned would be beneficial to the reader, although I removed some. Let me know your thoughts. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 22:30, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:17, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
Source and image review and spotcheck
[edit]Images seem well-placed. File:ItWasHotWeStayedInTheWaterCover.jpg has a broken source URL. Where on the source for File:Will Oldham 2017.jpg is the licence? File:The Pull - The Microphones.ogg's rationale probably needs to describe a bit more why a sample is needed. File:Eric'striplive.jpg from which one file is derived has a broken source. I don't see ALT text anywhere. Source-wise (spot-check contained therein):
- Thanks for the review: will reply to each point in order. Source URL fixed; per diario.madrid.es website, "With few exceptions expressly indicated, the contents of the daily website.madrid.es are published under Creative Commons CC by 4.0 license" (google translate); file rationale expanded; can't find the Eric's trip file anywhere else, not sure what else I can do, deadlinked content doesnt necessitate removal; alt text added. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 04:20, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
- #1 doesn't mention "The Pull" anywhere. It also doesn't say that "The Glow" is the climax or that it has segments.
It Was Hot opens with lightly-strummed acoustic guitar switching rhythmically from the right to left channel of your speaker
. Don't need to cite that the opener is "The Pull".leading up perfectly to the album's climax, the laid-back yet riveting charms of the Microphones' otherworldly cover of Eric's Trip's "Sand," and the epic "The Glow." [...] The latter [...] weaves several loosely connected segments together into a disjointed, yet brilliantly self-referential epic.
— PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c)
- Where does #2 speak of liner notes?
- It's kind of a WP:BLUE. The liner notes not giving individual contributions is an obvious fact and is used to introduce the following quote. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c)
- In #3, the article text resembles the source's "It was his first LP in a streak to revolve around an element of nature – here, of course, water — before 2001’s The Glow pt. II captured fire and air and 2003’s Mount Eerie did rock. " a bit much. Is the "B" in the sidebar supposed to source the 4 out of 5 star thing?
- 4/5 changed to B. For the wording, honestly, I disagree. The parts that are similar are mostly the parts that are facts and have to be kept— the albums, the element names, use of the word "element". I don't see ways to reword without making the sentence less clear but open to ideas. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c)
- Let's see if anyone else has input. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:36, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
- I would be more than happy to provide an additional opinion on this as I have worked on several music-related FACs in the past. Apologies for being dense, but @Jo-Jo Eumerus:, could you please clarify the question for me? I just want to make sure that I am looking at and providing an opinion about the right thing. Aoba47 (talk) 19:05, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
- The question is whether the text in the source is too similar to that in the article, to be a problem per WP:CLOP. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:09, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for the clarification. I can understand the WP:CLOP concern as the sentence structure in the article is quite similar to the one used in the citation. I agree that with certain word choices being kept, (i.e. the albums, the element names, the word "element"), but I wonder if there is a way to structure this differently. Maybe start with saying that It Was Hot's central theme is water and then go into saying that this would become a continuing theme for the next two albums, and then end with The Glow, Pt. 2 and Mount Eerie being themed around fire and rock respectively. This is of course just a suggestion. Jo-Jo Eumerus may have (and likely has) better ideas. Again, I think it is more about the structure, and less about the word choice, which I do agree will be similar as those words would need to be carried over into the article. I hope that this helps, and apologies in advance if it does not. Aoba47 (talk) 14:59, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for your insight, and sorry for the delayed response. I've taken your suggestion to introduce It Was Hot's theme first. See this [2]. Pinging @Aoba47 and Jo-Jo Eumerus: what do you think? — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 03:27, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for the response and the ping. No need to apologize. I think that the edit addresses the concern with close paraphrasing, but that is my opinion and I would of course respect what Jo-Jo Eumerus has to say about it. For me, I would say that the current wording is appropriate. Aoba47 (talk) 04:08, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
- This edit seems fine. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:31, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for the response and the ping. No need to apologize. I think that the edit addresses the concern with close paraphrasing, but that is my opinion and I would of course respect what Jo-Jo Eumerus has to say about it. For me, I would say that the current wording is appropriate. Aoba47 (talk) 04:08, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for your insight, and sorry for the delayed response. I've taken your suggestion to introduce It Was Hot's theme first. See this [2]. Pinging @Aoba47 and Jo-Jo Eumerus: what do you think? — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 03:27, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for the clarification. I can understand the WP:CLOP concern as the sentence structure in the article is quite similar to the one used in the citation. I agree that with certain word choices being kept, (i.e. the albums, the element names, the word "element"), but I wonder if there is a way to structure this differently. Maybe start with saying that It Was Hot's central theme is water and then go into saying that this would become a continuing theme for the next two albums, and then end with The Glow, Pt. 2 and Mount Eerie being themed around fire and rock respectively. This is of course just a suggestion. Jo-Jo Eumerus may have (and likely has) better ideas. Again, I think it is more about the structure, and less about the word choice, which I do agree will be similar as those words would need to be carried over into the article. I hope that this helps, and apologies in advance if it does not. Aoba47 (talk) 14:59, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
- The question is whether the text in the source is too similar to that in the article, to be a problem per WP:CLOP. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:09, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
- I would be more than happy to provide an additional opinion on this as I have worked on several music-related FACs in the past. Apologies for being dense, but @Jo-Jo Eumerus:, could you please clarify the question for me? I just want to make sure that I am looking at and providing an opinion about the right thing. Aoba47 (talk) 19:05, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
- Let's see if anyone else has input. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:36, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
- 4/5 changed to B. For the wording, honestly, I disagree. The parts that are similar are mostly the parts that are facts and have to be kept— the albums, the element names, use of the word "element". I don't see ways to reword without making the sentence less clear but open to ideas. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c)
- #4's "because even though he collaborated with other musicians on the project throughout the years, the Microphones name is really synonymous with Elverum himself. " might resemble "Although the project has involved many collaborations with other musicians, it is considered synonymous with Elverum" too much.
- Reworded. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c)
- OKish. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:47, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
- Reworded. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c)
- #6 Again sentence structure very similar to source. What makes this a high-quality reliable source?
- Reworded. Considered reliable at Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources. Generally, print music magazines that have been around for a while can be trusted. It's oft-cited on wiki. [3] — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c)
- #8 I'll assume good faith that it isn't too-closely-paraphrased or misrepresented.
- #9 Does Johnson still own the studio?
- Yes, assuming this page is up to date. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c)
- That might actually be a better source for this claim. I know, company About Us webpages will be inappropriate 99% of the time but they are ideal to specify the owners and staff of a company. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:36, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, assuming this page is up to date. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c)
- #10 What makes this podcast a reliable source?
- I'd argue that interviews can be treated as primary sources, making this fall under WP:ABOUTSELF and therefore reliable. Some discussion is at Wikipedia:Interviews (essay):
Interviews are generally reliable for the fact that the interviewee said something
— PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c)- My understanding is that the interviewer still has to be reliable. The world is full of fake quotes. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:47, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
- I'd argue that interviews can be treated as primary sources, making this fall under WP:ABOUTSELF and therefore reliable. Some discussion is at Wikipedia:Interviews (essay):
- #11 I'll assume good faith that it isn't too-closely-paraphrased or misrepresented.
- #12 What makes this website a reliable source?
- Print regional newspaper. Author has written for Pitchfork, Seattle Weekly.
- #13 Archive is broken.
- So, that's odd. I keep trying to archive this and it isn't going through. I'll remove the broken link for now. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c)
- #15 says "chaos", not "noise"
- No,
“Ice” starts in chaos, [...] ending in vinyl hang-up noise
— PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c)
- No,
- #16 What makes Heather Phares a reliable source? "presents delicate, almost folky melodies wrapped up in and surrounded by waves of droning, distorted guitars" isn't there, either.
- Allmusic is generally considered reliable for opinion. WP:ALLMUSIC. Adjusted quote to be accurate. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c)
- #17 where does it say that The Breeze has experimental bits?
- #13 describes that, this source places it as an interlude. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c)
- #18 I'll assume good faith that it isn't too-closely-paraphrased or misrepresented.
- #20 I'll assume good faith that it isn't too-closely-paraphrased or misrepresented.
- #21 I'll assume good faith that it isn't too-closely-paraphrased or misrepresented, but the URL may not be working.
- It is working: it's ProQuest, so you need to sign into TWL. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c)
- That doesn't work, either. The problem seems to be that the URL isn't valid in the first place. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:47, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
- It works just fine for me. I log into TWL and click ProQuest. After it redirects, I click the link and it goes through. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 17:40, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
- OK, now it works, and it checks out. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:49, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
- It works just fine for me. I log into TWL and click ProQuest. After it redirects, I click the link and it goes through. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 17:40, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
- That doesn't work, either. The problem seems to be that the URL isn't valid in the first place. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:47, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
- It is working: it's ProQuest, so you need to sign into TWL. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c)
Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:31, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- I adjusted the formatting of the bullet points, hope you don't mind. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 04:20, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Jo-Jo Eumerus: Thanks for taking the time to review! All comments have received replies — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 03:51, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
- Hello, Jo-Jo Eumerus. Could you confirm if this is a pass on the reviews you've conducted here or are there any outstanding issues? FrB.TG (talk) 11:22, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- Only the question under #3 needs input. And if someone can access #18-#21 that would be great. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:52, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- So #3 is resolved. I am still AGFing on #18-#21 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:31, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Jo-Jo Eumerus: Are you able to provide support, given the outstanding 2 sources are 00s magazines and don't exist anywhere online (as far as I can tell)? — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 17:09, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
- "Support", no, but a "Pass", yes, that I can do. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:59, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Jo-Jo Eumerus: Are you able to provide support, given the outstanding 2 sources are 00s magazines and don't exist anywhere online (as far as I can tell)? — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 17:09, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
- So #3 is resolved. I am still AGFing on #18-#21 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:31, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
- Only the question under #3 needs input. And if someone can access #18-#21 that would be great. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:52, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- Hello, Jo-Jo Eumerus. Could you confirm if this is a pass on the reviews you've conducted here or are there any outstanding issues? FrB.TG (talk) 11:22, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Jo-Jo Eumerus: Thanks for taking the time to review! All comments have received replies — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 03:51, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
Support from Crisco 1492
[edit]- Given the brevity of the article, is the K Records link in the release and reception section necessary?
- shipped alongside extras - I was going to ask if this was worth linking to feelies (to use the term at TV Tropes), but apparently we don't have an article on the concept of physical goods shipped alongside media releases. :/ I may need to rectify that at some point.
- from four publications - feels a bit overly specific, given that there could have been zines or other media that covered the release but have never been digitized.
- [,] - I believe MOS:PMC would allow the Oxford comma to be added without the square brackets.
- None of the listed personnel are discussed in the article. Have they never gone on record to discuss it?
- I've made a few edits, almost exclusively commas. Please review
Overall, this is a tight little article that I'm basically already ready to support, aside from the personnel question and the "four publications". Most of this is nitpicks. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 18:05, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- Hey, thanks for the review! Your comma edits look good. I've removed the first K Records link but feel like the release section is far down enough that readers may miss the lead link. Let me know thoughts. Re: personnel, I couldn't find really anything just on google. I did find a description of Mirah's contributions to "Ice", which have been added. I also found that Karl Blau re-recorded the album in 2004 [4] however I can't find reliable sources talking about it, and not sure how it fits into the scope of this article. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 02:17, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Crisco 1492: — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 02:17, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
- Excellent! I'm happy to support this for FA status. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 10:04, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Crisco 1492: — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 02:17, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
Support from Gog the Mild
[edit]Recusing to review.
- "frontman Phil Elverum recorded It Was Hot at Dub Narcotic Studio in Olympia, Washington". What do you mean by "recorded"? I took the opening sentence of the lead to mean that it was "recorded" by the Microphones.
- Per a lower footnote, "Despite involvement with many collaborators, the project is considered synonymous with Elverum". Maybe the explanatory footnote could be also placed there, would that help? — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c)
- No, but the change to the opening sentence does. :-)
- Sorry, I'm not sure what this means. Your original comment doesn't suggest a specific change. I can't see a good way to clear this up without adding clunky text; I feel like a footnote would work the best here. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c)
- "No, but the change to the opening sentence does. :-)" means that you have already fixed it; the smiley means I am happy with your fix. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:30, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry, I'm not sure what this means. Your original comment doesn't suggest a specific change. I can't see a good way to clear this up without adding clunky text; I feel like a footnote would work the best here. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c)
- No, but the change to the opening sentence does. :-)
- "Elverum embraced the medium's technical imperfections>" What does this mean? (If it is meant literally, why did he?)
- I'm not sure what the non-literal interpretation is— he embraced the lo-fidelty of analogue tape rather than trying to avoid it. For the reasons why, I think it was a necessity due to the recording studio, but later became part of his musical style. From Don't Wake Me Up (album): "
The studios in which Don't Wake Me Up was recorded lacked high-fidelity recording equipment. Johnson said, [Elverum] didn't have the attitude that this wasn't a real studio. He was more like, 'Hey, this is fun.'"
I've added a sentence to help clarify this, sourced from the book:The equipment at Dub Narcotic was modest and relatively primitive compared to what was housed in the Northwest studios that had emerged during the grunge boom of the previous ten years, but it was far beyond what was available to Phil in Anacortes.
— PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c)
- I'm not sure what the non-literal interpretation is— he embraced the lo-fidelty of analogue tape rather than trying to avoid it. For the reasons why, I think it was a necessity due to the recording studio, but later became part of his musical style. From Don't Wake Me Up (album): "
- "which would be explored in more depth on 2001's The Glow Pt. 2." Which is what?
- Sorry, I'm not sure I understand the question. What does "what" refer to? Thanks — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c)
- Introduce "2001's The Glow Pt. 2" properly. Tell a reader what it is, else they won't know.
- Intro added — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c)
- Introduce "2001's The Glow Pt. 2" properly. Tell a reader what it is, else they won't know.
- Lead: "It was released by K Records on September 26, 2000."; main article: "Microphones frontman Phil Elverum released Don't Wake Me Up in 1999." Which?
- Clarified that Don't Wake Me Up was released under K as well. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c)
- Note a "Despite involvement with many collaborators, the project is considered synonymous with Elverum." This does not make grammatical sense. Who had "involvement with many collaborators"?
- The project/band (Microphones). Reworded to make more sense — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c)
- "The review was published prior to the album's 2013 reissue, per this archive; Phares has been writing for AllMusic since before the album's release, per here." It is not necessary to cite in line. Just write in Wikipedia's voice and cite normally.
- Changed — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c)
- "setting "a new precedent" for K Records". The MoS on quotations: "[t]he source must be named '''in article text''' if the quotation is an opinion". Emphasis in original.
- Attributed quote — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c)
- "was also used for Elverum's previous albums." Assuming you mean 'was also used to record Elverum's previous albums' could you say so.
- Changed — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c)
- "Elverum's previous albums." Albums plural, although only one has been mentioned so far. Have I miscounted or are there other unmentioned albums?
- There are other albums, like the 3 demo tapes at The Microphones discography and Tests (album). However, the tests were only partially recorded at Dub Narcotic, so I've changed "albums" -> "album" — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c)
- "Initially, when Elverum began working". I would suggest that one of "Initially" or "when Elverum began" is redundant.
- Sure — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c)
More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:05, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
- "the album's lyrics were inspired by the poetic nature and mysteriousness of Will Oldham's work." Cold Oldhan and/or their work be briefly introduced.
- Added — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c)
- "The Gleam" and "(Something)" use drones similar to "The Glow", and the two-minute interlude "The Breeze" uses experimental elements. "Between Your Ear and the Other Ear" uses elements of freak folk and audio feedback. The album's closer, "Organs", uses a swell of guitars and keyboards". Could we cut the four uses of "use" or "uses" by using a synonym or two?
- Changed 2 — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c)
- "Sputnikmusic's joshuatree reviewed the album in 2008, praising the "unpredictable nature of the album", and called it Phil Elverum's second-best album". A synonym for the first use of "album"? (And, ideally, the third.)
- Trimmed quote and reworded. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c)
- "Douglas wrote, "Not many artists can say they wrote their masterpiece". Can we avoid using "wrote" twice in eight words?
- Reworded — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c)
- Baumgarten, book titles should be in title case.
- Done — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c)
- References: article titles should consistently be in title case, regardless of how they appear in their original.
- Done — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c)
Gog the Mild (talk) 18:32, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
- Hi PerfectSoundWhatever, nudge. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:13, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reminder, will go through these now. Didn't realize this is the oldest active FAC haha ! — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 03:10, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Gog the Mild: Everything's been replied to, have a few things that need clarification, thanks. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c)
- Thanks for the reminder, will go through these now. Didn't realize this is the oldest active FAC haha ! — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 03:10, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
- Looking good. Some come backs above. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:10, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
- PerfectSoundWhatever, nudge. You want to get back to me on these? Gog the Mild (talk) 15:53, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
- Looking good. Some come backs above. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:10, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry to hear that. Hopefully my support will go some way towards cheering you up. Nice article, good work. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:34, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for the well wishes, I appreciate the support — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 22:30, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. FrB.TG (talk) 21:12, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.