Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Dredge (video game)/archive1

toby

Coming back from the peer review! I've always thought the game looked cool, but I never got around to playing it.

To the other reviewers, consider checking out my FAC nom! toby ^(t)(c)(rw) 20:38, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

• Why is "aberrations" in parantheses?
  • IIRC, this was left from the copyedit. I've changed it to: "The player can catch regular fish as well as mutated versions called aberrations". Hopefully, this is what you wanted.
• ...the player can improve their skills by reading books... It's unclear what improving skills exactly affects.
  • By reading books you boost the player's stats. Dredge Wiki summarises these stats well. How do you want me to clarify this?
    • I've rephrased it to, ...the fisherman's attributes are improved by reading books...
• ...throughout the night, the game embraces horror elements when the fog appears. -> ... throughout the night, the game embraces horror elements when a fog appears. Sounds weird to my ears calling it "the" fog when it was never mentioned hitherto.
  • Done.
• A passive mode is featured in Dredge, which disables enemies from hunting the player. -> Dredge features a game mode that disables enemies from hunting the player. For clarification, does the mode disable enemies from existence or disable their aggresive behavior?
  • Never have played passive mode, so if we trust what the Internet says, it means that their aggression is disabled. They still appear in the game, just without the ability to hurt the player.
• I see that the image caption links sea monsters. I'd imagine this link should also be utilized somewhere in the body as it seems pretty relevant.
  • There actually was a wikilink to sea monsters in the prose but I've removed it because of a PR comment "seems like a borderlineMOS:EASTEREGG violation". What is your opinion on this? Should I reinstate the wikilink?
    • I've rephrased ...the player is chased by massive enemies... to ...the player is chased by massive sea monsters.
• In its original conception, Dredge would be a top-down turn-based game with elements similar to the final version, and not feature fishing mini-games. -> Dredge was conceived as a top-down turn-based game with elements similar to the final version but without fishing mini-games.
  • Done.
• ...and the mobility mechanism. Do you mean the movement system of the boat?
  • Yup. What do you want me to do here?
    • I rephrased it to ...and the movement system. as I think the lack of demotic wording confused me.
• ...the team developed four additional biomes (archipelagos). I don't see the need to put archipelagos in parentheses.
  • Done (removed the entire part, if that's what you wanted me to do, of course).
• The game's programmer and author, Joel Mason, stated that the player can visit other archipelagos in any sequence, although the second location... The fifth and last region... This stretch says the exploration of the archipelagos has no order yet you list them as the "first", "second", etc. This doesn't make sense to me.
  • Okay... I'll explain. Dredge is an open world game, meaning that you can go wherever you want in any order you want. HOWEVER, despite this devs have actually made an intended order of which islands to visit in which order. So, Gale Cliffs is the second archipelago of the game that the player should visit. But they don't have to, they can go to Stellar Basin instead, or Twisted Strand. Do you get what I mean? How should we clarify this?
    • I've rephrased it: ...stated that the archipelagos can be explored in any sequence, but were designed to promote a specific order; the second...
• As someone who doesn't know much about oceans, I didn't know what a blue hole is and I'd prefer not having to click the link per MOS:NOFORCELINK.
  • Did it for ya.
• ...to avoid focusing the game on jump scare horror. -> ...to avoid utilizing jump scare horror.
  • Done.
• Is it possible to define or describe Lovecraftian horror? I know what it is already, but I'd imagine there are some readers who do not.
  • Done.
• Probably worth it to include the release date of Dave the Diver like how you did so with other game mentions.
  • Good catch.
• Edwin Evans-Thirlwell of Eurogamer and Zoey Handley of Destructoid disliked the plot. No clarification?
  • Destructoid: "The plot is lifeless". Eurogamer: "The plot doesn't develop much". :/
    • Eurogamer seems to describe the game as lacking depth compared to traditional Lovecraftian stories in the succeeding sentence. I think you can include this.
• ...heads-up display (HUD)... I'd assume there's no need to abbreviate heads-up display as HUD if there is no other use of the term in the article.
  • Done.

Thanks for the review, @Tarlby:. I've mostly implemented everything you suggested but left a few questions on some points. Hopefully all is alright. Cheers, Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 14:11, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

I've dealt with the questions above; review my responses and bold CEs (revert or alter if needed). From an indie game FAC nommer to another, I support. toby ^(t)(c)(rw) 07:02, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Thank you so much. I approve the prose changes. Cheers, Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 13:21, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Airship

As always, these are suggestions, not demands; feel free to refuse with adequate justification.

Firstly, by my calculation, 625 of around 3,000 prose words in the body (over 20%) are sourced to this YouTube documentary, which seems, from my cursory inspection, to be mostly composed of interviews with the developers. Those 625 words comprise the wide majority of the "Development" section. With that in mind, could you please clarify how the article complies with the following from the core content policy WP:PRIMARY: "be cautious about basing large passages on [primary sources]"? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:58, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

Actually, most development sections rely on interviews with people who made the game. I'll give quick examples from recently-promoted FAs: Splatoon 3: Side Order's development section mostly comprises of interviews, while Hogwarts Legacy does it slightly less. Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 2 (GBA video game) also relies on interviews. Outer Wilds, a slightly older FA from 2024, heavily relies on Noclip in the development section. Another current FAC nomination, Horizon Zero Dawn, somewhat relies on Noclip, but considering that it's a much much bigger game, it also relies on other interviews. Speaking about my previous FAs, Smash Hit's development section mostly relies on primary sources (personal articles published in reliable sources). Same goes for Lego Indiana Jones: The Original Adventures (interviews). Nobody complained about this in any of those FAC nominations. I think that it'd be counterproductive to not include such information in articles (even though they are primary sources), considering that there's no other way of obtaining such answers than directly asking people who made the game about various aspects of the development. Technically, not including such information in articles would mean that they do not meet FA#1b criteria (comprehensibility). I might be wrong, but this most likely applies to other forms of media (films, songs, albums), not just video games. I'd love to hear opinions of others, because I don't think that this has been ever been brought up in FAC nominations which rely on interviews for development sections. I'd say that WP:IAR should apply here if we'd want to improve Wikipedia and obtain more high-quality articles (FAs and GAs). Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 17:47, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

I think we've got off on the wrong foot here. I don't think obtaining FAs and GAs necessarily contributes to improving Wikipedia (invoking IAR is a bit much), and I'm not really interested in discussing seven other FA candidacies. That said, I take your point that the nature of video games perhaps lend themselves easier to interviews explaining the progression of development, and doing a bit more research, it appears that Noclip might be viewed as a secondary source in some respects. Would you agree? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:10, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

Yup, I agree. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 15:14, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Comments from Laser brain

Placeholder – reviewing now. --Laser brain (talk) 13:17, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

• Support per below note. Oppose at this time, I'm sorry.

• I shouldn't be finding basic grammatical errors at FAC.
• Reading through the "Art style" and "Gameplay" sections, I find the prose to be clunky and not engaging. Passages like "He was inspired by Disco Elysium (2019) because of the game's abstract nature. The water shaders were altered multiple times during the development process." lack context and there is an overall lack of a cohesive narrative through both sections. "Gameplay" jumps right into "The upgrading system" without any explanation or context.
• "Dredge has a low-poly (a polygon mesh that has a low number of polygons) art style" – a high number of statements like this are attributed to Gabriel Moss who is listed as a "freelance reviewer" and I can't find any information on his notability as a video game journalist. One would hope for better sources, for the most part.

These are just a few selections but I'm not encouraged that this is up to FA standards at this time. --Laser brain (talk) 10:30, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Sorry to hear this LB. I've made further changes to the article to include your suggestions. Hopefully another editor will chip in with another copyedit. Cheers, Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 13:11, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

I'm willing to help out, but can you address the sourcing issue? Has the use of Moss been reduced? I'm not sure of the current sourcing standards for video games articles but I'd think we'd prefer more notable journalists if possible. --Laser brain (talk) 01:01, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

Hey @Laser brain, quick heads up that I heard of your comments here in an off-wiki chat with Vacant. Just on the point on Moss, the art style being low-poly isn't something that should need a high bar of sourcing, or even really any. Identifying works like File:Wikipe-tan pixel art.svg as pixel art for instance wouldn't be considered WP:OR. Even if it were, much more relevant than a writer being staff or not staff for reliability is the outlet publishing the piece under the IGN brand, staking their brand on the review's quality. Are there more contentious statements being sourced to Moss that you are more concerned about? Whonting (talk) 12:53, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not troubled with Moss if you're saying we are using that source for non-controversial claims. I wasn't previously aware of IGN's process for vetting contributors. Thanks for the clarification! --Laser brain (talk) 13:20, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Hey LB. I'll do another round of copy edits today and look to address the rest of your concerns. In the mean time, we can discuss on improving the prose. Cheers, Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 14:11, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Should be done now. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 15:45, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, striking my opposition as things look more polished. I'll run through it again this weekend with an eye toward copyediting and hopefully we can get this thing across the finish line. --Laser brain (talk) 17:50, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

• Close to supporting, but I have a piece of feedback about the Reception section. You write in the article "Abbot and Handley praised the soundrack" but Abbott writes only, "Scored by quaint piano music..." and Handley merely says something like "The music is rather nice" which, combined, I would hesitate to classify as "praise". I would remove this section altoghter unless you can find some other notable criticism of the score. --Laser brain (talk) 11:36, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

  I'll look into that and respond when I finish. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 17:24, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

  Hi LB. I've replaced "Abbot and Handley praised the soundrack" with "Green noted that the soundtrack "keeps things eerie throughout"". Did not find any more in depth comments about the game's music. Hopefully this is alright. I've also removed music praise from the lede to keep the rest consistent. Cheers, Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 17:36, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

  Hi, @Laser brain:. I think that I've addressed what you wanted. If there's anything left to do, let me know. Cheers, Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 13:18, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

  @Vacant0: Thanks for the ping - happy to support now. --Laser brain (talk) 14:29, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

  Thank you for the cooperation. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 14:29, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Source review – Pass

Will do soon. Aza24 (talk) 03:33, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

Formatting

FACR 2c

• Typo in Ref 5 ("Mangificent")
  • Done
• I would probably link to Tom Hull (mathematician) (ref 23)
  • Done
• Ref 66 missing access date
  • Done
• Ref 77 missing access date
  • Done
• Ref 79 missing access date
  • Done
• No issues with name, date, title, publication inclusion
  • Spot checked accuracy in these things, and no issues either
• Optional Recommendation: Ref 23 more specific date of February 2006
  • Done
• Optional Recommendation: Consolidate the Notes section into references (possible with References larger section, and Notes + Citations smaller sections, or a similar titling scheme). Having a single note as an entire section seems silly, but completely up to you.

Reliability

FACR 1c

• Most of the commentators are publishing on a reputable platform, which typically establishes substantial notability alone. However, Destructoid (ref 16) looks to be a more casual blog (it is self-described as a blog, whereas PC Gamer, IGN, Gamspot etc. are described as websites/magazines/digital media etc). What makes Zoey Handley a subject matter expert? Moocroft-Sharp also seems on the edge, though his bio with a GamePur role seems perhaps sufficient.
  • Zoey Handley seems to have also worked at MSN and GameSpot. Moocroft-Sharp has also worked with PCGamesN. I think that this is alright.
• No isses with the others refs, I believe. And the YouTube ref is good as the uploader is a professional group in this field (and nicely done with the timestamps!)

Coverage

FACR 1c

• Seems solid, but I am seeing a mention in the 2025 book Video Game Ecologies and Culture. Normally a few mentions would not be pressing, but given that there are very few academic sources in this article (to be expected with a topic of this flavor and recency, and certainly not a fault), you should prioritize the usage of any that are available. I also see mention in The Game Needs to Change. Totally understood if their information is not relevant, but otherwise use what you can.
  • Don't know how I missed this but thanks! I've implemented content from the second source. The first one sadly is not helpeful in this case.

Verifiability

FACR 1c and 1f

• I do not see anything uncited, aside from plot content per the usual standard
• Please specify the page of the Hull source. It's good to keep the whole range, for citation formatting purposes, so maybe this is an {{rp}} moment? Or you can do "Math Horizons. 13 (3): 10–12 [10]"
  • Done.
• I admit that I did say the timestamps were nice above. But I really think you need a timestamp range. For instance, when I spot checked 36:27 (first ref of the "Release" section), it took until 38:05 to get all of the information. This feels more like a page range, then a single page, if you see what I'm saying. Make verifiability as easy as possible here with time stamp ranges.
  • I'll work on this tomorrow.

Image review

• Images should have alternative text per MOS:ACCIM to allow those unable to see them to receive the visual information they contain (I see broad consensus in the ongoing discussion on WT:FAC that there is broad consensus that this is so, seperate from any definitive statements about what that text should look like -- there are many good guides online).
  • Done.
• File:Dredge Cover Art.jpg: textbook fair use; no issue here.
• File:Dredge gameplay screenshot.jpg: ditto -- one screenshot to illustrate gameplay is standard in video-game articles, and the FUR is good.

UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 17:41, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi, @UndercoverClassicist:. Pinging you in case you did not see this. I've left alt text for the two images in the article. Is it good enough? Let me know. Cheers, Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 14:05, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

I didn't -- that's a pass, given that. Personally, I would adjust the Blue Hole alt text to give more of a visual description of the image (the caption tells you what it is), but as the Wikipedia guidance on alt text is rather loose and much disputed, I don't feel right withholding the pass on that basis. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 14:15, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 14:19, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Comments from OceanHok

• " As he explores the open world, the player can upgrade the character's fishing equipment and abilities" - you already mentioned that it was an open world in the preceding sentence, so there's no reason to repeat it.
• "while the night contains the game's horror elements." - would be better if you are more specific about what those horror elements are, such as mentioning players will encounter supernatural events or be pursued by sea monsters.
• "Five archipelagos were designed for the game, four of which are based on geological formations" - "Four of the five archipelagos are based on geological formations", since you already mentioned there are five archipelagos in the first paragraph. It is not the development info I would have picked for the lead though.
• "on March 30, 2023, with versions for Android and iOS following in February 2025" - either "In March 2023" or "On February 27, 2025" to maintain consistency.
• "praising its gameplay, presentation, inventory management system, progression system, and exploration" - I would have limited it to simply "gameplay, presentation, and exploration", because neither system are established in the gameplay portion of the lead paragraphs.
• "as he travels by boat through an ocean,[2][3] who can help inhabitants of various islands" - the use of "who" here is not correct. The ocean cannot help the inhaitants of various island
• I like the gameplay section for being quite precise, but at the same time I feel like it glosses over important details. For instance, how do you help inhabitants of various islands? It has a skill tree but how do you level up in this game? What does the skill tree do? What is money used for in the game? For a fishing game, there is basically no mention of how you fish in this game. (You should at least say that there are fishing minigames). The development section said the game pushed players to explore at night but did not specify how they did it.
  • In works
• "A central mechanic during these nighttime sections is the panic meter, which reflects the player's sanity" - PC Gamer does not describe it as a "central" mechanic though.
• There should't be a two-sentence paragraph. Consider integrating the third paragraph of the gameplay section with the first paragraph.
• " tentacled sea monster attacks the oil rig, destroying the drill before being eaten by the Leviathan" - Just to make sure I am reading this correctly. The tentacled sea monster was eaten by the Leviathan after it ate the oil rig?
• "The team announced the game in August 2022 with a trailer,[17][18] and showcased it at Gamescom later in the month" - should be in the release section
• "Early versions of Dredge were conceived as a top-down turn-based game that already contained some elements of the final release, though fishing mini-games had not yet been implemented." - Because you already established that it was an early version of the game, just said that "Early version of Dredge was conceived as a top-down turn-based game" is sufficient.
• "The first six months of development were spent refining that region, particularly its controls and movement systems" - the controls and movement systems have nothing to do with that region? They are fundamental gameplay systems not limited by region.
• "they were subtly designed to encourage a particular progression. Gale Cliffs, for instance, draws on Scandinavian aesthetics" - It seems that this is suggesting the game's aesthetics have a role in influencing how players progress?
  • No
• "For these nighttime sections, the team also created a fog shader centered on the player rather than the camera" - not easy for general readers to understand. Should at the very least wikilink shader and camera.
• "unlike the fishing systems like the one featured in Stardew Valley" - I don' think we need to write about Stardew Valley as most players would not be familiar with it or its fishing system
• "Initially scheduled to release in late 2024, the studio delayed the game to 2025;[28] it was released on February 27, 2025, for iOS and Android platforms" - "Initially scheduled to release in late 2024, the studio delayed the game to February 27, 2025, for iOS and Android platforms"
• "The third DLC, The Iron Rig, was supposed to come out in the fourth quarter of 2023, but was delayed to 2024" - "The third DLC, The Iron Rig, was supposed to come out in the fourth quarter of 2023, but was delayed to August 2024" and then remove the last sentence of the paragraph.
• "Steven Green of Nintendo World Report called Dredge a "near-perfect indie game"" - doesn't feel quite right to have this sentence in the first paragraph which serves as a overview/summary. Can be seen as WP:PEACOCK.
• "Harrison Abbot of Bloody Disgusting described the experience as "well-balanced and thought-through",[44] while Nicole Carpenter of Polygon called it "dark yet cozy"" - it is unclear what they are praising. The overall gameplay? The overall game experience?
• The reception section often said something is praised/criticized, but did not specify why it was praised/criticized, which is perhaps more important. (This is especially true when you have sentence pattern like "A approved B but C disliked D because it is boring".
  • In works
• "Abbot compared the game's open-world design to that of Breath of the Wild" - what is the "open world design" then.
  • In works
• "Mejia complimented the game's relaxing atmosphere" - WP:CRS: don't write subjective statements in wiki-voice.
• " it became more enjoyable as the player upgraded their equipment" - what does "it" stands for here? The "relaxing atmosphere"?
• The third paragraph of the reception section is a mix of many concepts. The parts about actual game design should be moved back to the first paragraph.
• "Multiplayer.it writer Giulia Martino praised the Italian translation of the game" - I am not exactly sure about this. You picked an Italian reviewer and he praised the Italian translation, but you could have also picked a German or a Chinese review and they could have said the same thing. Singling out Italian translation seem a bit odd to me.
• "DLC's game design, particularly the narwhal." - why is the narwhal an example of "game design"? Narwhal is a creature.
• "more gameplay were added to the DLC" - not exactly what he said? He seems to feel that there is not enough content in the DLC, but he doesn't seem to be asking more gameplay additions.
• "it's a shame the world of Dredge doesn't have a stronger reaction to the events of The Iron Rig" should be rewritten, because I am not sure what's the "reaction" and the "events" they are talking about.
• Per MOS:VGAWARDS, awards given by individual publications (IGN, PC Gamer) should be removed.

That's it for now. OceanHok (talk) 06:28, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

All done except where noted. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 18:46, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi, @OceanHok:. Hopefully most of your comments are addressed now. I went through the reception again and specified why they praised/criticsed parts of the game whether it was possible, of course. Most of the reviewers seem to just leave short notes, nothing substantial, which is sad. If there's anything left, let me know and I'll tackle it. Cheers, Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 14:03, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Happy to support the article now. I would have preferred using less reviews but using each one more extensively, but I think the section in its current state is good enough. OceanHok (talk) 06:35, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your comprehensive review, OceanHok. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 19:00, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Olliefant

• I don't think the plural of "downloadable content" is "downloadable contents", the term I usually see is "downloadable content packs"
• I feel the page is somewhat lacking in pictures
• "The team also planned an ice biome during development, but postponed it until it was later used in The Pale Reach downloadable content" this feels somewhat clunky. Particularly "The Pale Reach downloadable content", again I think the word "pack" would be beneficial here
• "introduce crossover content into the latter game" such as?
  • The news article does not go into detail about this so we don't know.
• "The first paid DLC" implies the others were free

That's what I found, ping me when done. Olliefant (she/her) 07:23, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

All done. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 20:23, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi, @Olliefant:. I think that I've addressed all of your comments. If there's anything left to do, let me know and I'll tackle that too. Cheers, Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 13:20, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Keith D

• Need to check out the author of reference 27, is "Phillips Kennedy, Victoria" correct or should it be "Kennedy, Victoria Phillips". We have 32 articles using each of the two variants. Keith D (talk) 20:58, 30 April 2026 (UTC)
  • It seems like it is the former. At least that seems to be the case in reliable sources and journals I found. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 20:25, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Removed review

Just noting that an editor dropped their review here and subsequently removed it, probably due to some conflict elsewhere. I encourage the nominator to look at this. My support still stands. toby ^(t)(c)(rw) 02:12, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Just noticing this. @Nineteen Ninety-Four guy: is there a reason why you removed your review? Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 11:53, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Noting here that the reviewer, before withdrawing their own FAC nom, also randomly dropped a support for another nomination and called the nominator a "prick", which could be related Crystal Drawers 🎖️ ^{(wanna talk?)} 11:55, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

That's not a good sign if you ask me. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 11:57, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

There seems to be an ANI thread about the user. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 11:58, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Comments from Z1720

I reviewed this article at the PR and thought that it was of high quality. Here are some additional comments below:

• "who faces progressively Lovecraftian creatures" How does something become progressively Lovecraftian? I think progressively can be removed in this instance.
  • I think I meant to say progressively faces Lovecraftian creatures. Like, they face them slowly over time. Nevertheless, I've removed that word.
• "as he fishes and explores an open world consisting of five archipelagos. As he explores, the player can" maybe replace the second explores with "as the game progresses" or something similar?
  • Done.
• "Four of the five archipelagos are based on geological formations." what is the fifth based on?
  • The fifth one (the starting one) is not based off anything.
• "The player fishes by participating in 'quick-time mini-games'" why is quick-time mini-games in single quotes? I don't think they are needed here.
  • Done.
• I'm a little iffy on the amount of "X says Y" statements I see in the "Reception" section. For most statements, I think it is necessary. However, I wonder if some of the most commented parts of the game, especially the fishing aspect, could have the critics' opinions merged together and given as generalised statements. This might also help cut down the word count of the Reception section.

Please ping me when ready for a re-review. Z1720 (talk) 16:50, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

@Z1720: I've tried incorporating your suggestions. Please tell me if anything else has to be fixed, especially regarding the reception. I've tried rewriting some parts of it again but I don't know what else I can do to shorten it a bit. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 17:32, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

• Support. No further concerns. I did another a copyedit of the "Reception" section: feel free to revert anything that is not helpful. Z1720 (talk) 18:10, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

  Thank you. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 18:28, 14 May 2026 (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) 11:25, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

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