User talk:Crystal Drawers

Hello, I'm WhiteTailedEagle. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Pilot (Arrested Development), but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. 🦅White-tailed eagle^{Talk to the eagle}Stalking eagle 22:58, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I believe you’ve made a mistake. I expanded the article and I don’t think any information was unsourced. I even added 3 new sources. I undid your reverts, as it seems you’re just reverting new information for no real reason. Also, it seems you have a history of doing stuff like this according to your talk page Crystal Drawers (talk) 23:01, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Pilot (Arrested Development) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of DaniloDaysOfOurLives -- DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 04:02, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article Pilot (Arrested Development) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article needs changes or clarifications to meet the good article criteria. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Pilot (Arrested Development) and Talk:Pilot (Arrested Development)/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of DaniloDaysOfOurLives -- DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 04:41, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article Bad News (How I Met Your Mother) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article needs changes or clarifications to meet the good article criteria. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Bad News (How I Met Your Mother) and Talk:Bad News (How I Met Your Mother)/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of DaniloDaysOfOurLives -- DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 02:42, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Crystal Drawers! I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may still benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

• Introductory tutorial
• Contributing to Wikipedia

If you have questions, just use this link to ask for help; a volunteer will visit you here shortly!

Need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Try the Task Center.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Again, welcome! TzarN64 (talk) 01:40, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you :) Crystal Drawers (talk) 10:44, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article Pilot (Arrested Development) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Pilot (Arrested Development) for comments about the article, and Talk:Pilot (Arrested Development)/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of DaniloDaysOfOurLives -- DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 02:21, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article Bad News (How I Met Your Mother) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Bad News (How I Met Your Mother) for comments about the article, and Talk:Bad News (How I Met Your Mother)/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of DaniloDaysOfOurLives -- DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 04:42, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please examine the result, remove any AFC artefacts, and add cats and inbound links 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 14:45, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry! I was planning on doing it but had to leave for a second and so didn’t do it yet. Thanks for the reminder, though :) Crystal Drawers (talk) 15:03, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article Top Banana (Arrested Development) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article needs changes or clarifications to meet the good article criteria. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Top Banana (Arrested Development) and Talk:Top Banana (Arrested Development)/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of DaniloDaysOfOurLives -- DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 02:44, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article Top Banana (Arrested Development) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Top Banana (Arrested Development) for comments about the article, and Talk:Top Banana (Arrested Development)/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of DaniloDaysOfOurLives -- DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 03:05, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Crystal Drawers. This is a courtesy notice that the copy edit you requested for BoJack Hates the Troops at the Guild of Copy Editors requests page is now complete. All feedback welcome! — TheOnlyZac (talk) 23:07, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article BoJack Horseman season 5 you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of It is a wonderful world -- It is a wonderful world (talk) 10:07, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your good article nomination of the article Flight of the Phoenix (Arrested Development) is under review. See the review page for more information. This may take up to 7 days; feel free to contact the reviewer with any questions you might have. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Adamstom.97 -- Adamstom.97 (talk) 14:08, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your good article nomination of the article Flight of the Phoenix (Arrested Development) has failed. See the review page for more information. If or when the reviewer's feedback has been addressed, you may nominate the article again. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Adamstom.97 -- Adamstom.97 (talk) 20:43, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your good article nomination of the article BoJack Horseman season 5 has passed; congratulations! See the review page for more information. If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of It is a wonderful world -- It is a wonderful world (talk) 15:22, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the ping for the BoJack Horseman season 5 peer review. I will see if I can get to the peer review in the future, but apologies for not being able to get to it sooner. It may be helpful to reach out to other editors who have work on television topics in the FAC/FA space, and make sure that all of my outstanding comments from the FAC are addressed, like the issues with the book sources. Best of luck with the peer review! Aoba47 (talk) 20:33, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Good luck with your new FAC :) Crystal Drawers (talk) 22:39, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 00:51, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, how are you doing? I’m just letting you know that all your last FAC comments have been resolved, in case you wanted to leave some comments at the peer review. No pressure, though! Good luck again with your FAC :) Crystal Drawers (talk) 19:02, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by RangersRus was:

No need for separate article. Some of the content can be merged to List of Franklin & Bash episodes.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Pilot (Franklin & Bash) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

RangersRus (talk) 21:47, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your good article nomination of the article Fish Out of Water (BoJack Horseman) is under review. See the review page for more information. This may take up to 7 days; feel free to contact the reviewer with any questions you might have. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Plifal -- Plifal (talk) 14:43, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Philbert.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:34, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your good article nomination of the article The One Where Michael Leaves is under review. See the review page for more information. This may take up to 7 days; feel free to contact the reviewer with any questions you might have. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Pokelego999 -- Pokelego999 (talk) 00:26, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your good article nomination of the article The One Where Michael Leaves has passed; congratulations! See the review page for more information. If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Pokelego999 -- Pokelego999 (talk) 04:52, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Lucille's Double Wink.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:40, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On 27 September 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Creek (fandom), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that fan-art of a romantic pairing between two South Park characters later appeared in the show itself? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Creek (fandom). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Creek (fandom)), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to nominate it.

Z1720 (talk) 12:02, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

		The Special Barnstar
		Thank you for improving the Arrested Development episode articles (and promoting some to GAs!) Appreciate it :D Mjks28 (talk) 23:30, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, thank you so much! I've always appreciated your creation of the articles, it's been great fun expanding them! Thank you again for leaving this, it’s very nice of you :) Crystal Drawers (talk) 00:31, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your good article nomination of the article Fish Out of Water (BoJack Horseman) has failed. See the review page for more information. If or when the reviewer's feedback has been addressed, you may nominate the article again. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Plifal -- Plifal (talk) 13:21, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Good Grief.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:16, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Crystal Drawers. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Hank's Unmentionable Problem, a page you created, has not been edited in at least five months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 13:10, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article A Allan Adventure is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Allan Adventure until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Go D. Usopp (talk) 11:27, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your good article nomination of the article Sad Sack (Arrested Development) is under review. See the review page for more information. This may take up to 7 days; feel free to contact the reviewer with any questions you might have. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Olliefant -- Olliefant (talk) 00:04, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your good article nomination of the article Sad Sack (Arrested Development) has passed; congratulations! See the review page for more information. If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Olliefant -- Olliefant (talk) 19:43, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Curb Your Enthusiasm MAGA.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Johnj1995 (talk) 01:47, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Larry vs. Michael J. Fox, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Somepinkdude (talk) 22:07, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your good article nomination of the article Larry vs. Michael J. Fox is under review. See the review page for more information. This may take up to 7 days; feel free to contact the reviewer with any questions you might have. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Olliefant -- Olliefant (talk) 08:06, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your good article nomination of the article Larry vs. Michael J. Fox has passed; congratulations! See the review page for more information. If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Olliefant -- Olliefant (talk) 17:45, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your good article nomination of the article Afternoon Delight (Arrested Development) is under review. See the review page for more information. This may take up to 7 days; feel free to contact the reviewer with any questions you might have. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Olliefant -- Olliefant (talk) 18:22, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your good article nomination of the article Afternoon Delight (Arrested Development) has passed; congratulations! See the review page for more information. If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Olliefant -- Olliefant (talk) 16:46, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Crystal Drawers. This message concerns the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Hank's Unmentionable Problem".

Drafts that go unedited for six months are eligible for deletion, in accordance with our draftspace policy, and this one has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission, and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you read this, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the draft so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! DreamRimmer bot II (talk) 23:25, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on File:Tobias AD cosplay.jpeg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a file licensed as "for non-commercial use only", "no derivative use", "for Wikipedia use only", or "used with permission"; and it has not been shown to comply with the limited standards for the use of non-free content. If you agree with the deletion, there is no need to do anything. If, however, you believe that this image may be retained on Wikipedia under one of the permitted conditions then:

• state clearly the source of the image. If it has been copied from elsewhere on the web you should provide links to: the image itself, the page which uses it and the page which contains the license conditions.
• add the relevant copyright tag and if necessary, a complete fair use rationale.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Whpq (talk) 02:24, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note - Not all Creative Commons licenses are the same, nor are all of them license compatible with Wikipedia. The image you uploaded from this flickr source states the license is CC BY-NC 2.0 and not CC BY 2.0 as you claimed. -- Whpq (talk) 02:27, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On 11 November 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article The One Where Michael Leaves, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the premiere of the second season of Arrested Development required David Cross to paint himself blue, taking up to three showers a day to remove the paint? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/The One Where Michael Leaves. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, The One Where Michael Leaves), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to nominate it.

^Complex/_Rational 00:03, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

		The Featured Article Medal
		By the authority vested in me by myself it gives me great pleasure to present you with this special, very exclusive award created just for we few, we happy few, this band of brothers, who have shed sweat, tears and probably blood, in order to be able to proudly claim "I too have taken an article to Featured status". Gog the Mild (talk) 22:05, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! It truly is a dream come true! Crystal Drawers (talk) 22:10, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, Crystal Drawers! The article you nominated, The One Where Michael Leaves, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.

This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Gog the Mild (talk) via FACBot (talk) 23:06, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On 17 November 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article A Allan Adventure, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that an episode of Smiling Friends was originally intended to feature a different video game? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/A Allan Adventure. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, A Allan Adventure), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to nominate it.

Launchballer 00:03, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2025 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:51, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey I saw you sent Bad News (How I Met Your Mother) to GAN a while back, I've been working on a little project recently and was wondering if you would have any intrest in helping out with/co-noming Last Words (How I Met Your Mother). It's fairly connected to Bad News so I'd expect their to be some overlap in sourcing. Also open to working on any other episode you might be intrested on. No worries if not you're not intrested Olliefant (she/her) 17:49, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Thank you for the offer, I’d love to help with more HIMYM-related articles. I don’t think I have time to start work on the article right this second, but I’d be glad to work on it tonight. Thank you, again! Crystal Drawers (talk) 18:23, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question, I'm writing something up but how would you interpret this? [1] In the 8 PM timeslot HIMYM had more viewers than House (10.5 vs 10.2), however in the 8:30 timeslot the same episode of House had more (10.9). Would you say the House episode had higher viewership given it peaked higher later or would you go by only the 8 PM numbers? Olliefant (she/her) 03:26, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If we’re comparing the two, I’d say House had more, as the highest rating goes to it at 10.9, but it probably depends on which timeslot the shows are more usually in (8 vs 8:30) Crystal Drawers 🍌 ^{(wanna talk?)} 03:33, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if you’re still interested in us working on Last Words together, I could write up a Themes and analysis section for it like I do for (most of) my other GAs. I’d imagine the episode had more thematic analysis than most given its emotional nature. Let me know! Crystal Drawers 🍌 ^{(wanna talk?)} 03:38, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah totally, I forgot to work on it lol, I was still planning to come back to you once I felt the article was GAN ready since you put some work in on it Olliefant (she/her) 03:41, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good, I could probably conjure up a quick Analysis section tomorrow since, upon a Google search, there is quite a bit of scholarly analysis on the episode. Crystal Drawers 🍌 ^{(wanna talk?)} 03:42, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I did some expansion of reception. Though I still may add a bit more, I'm ready to nominate it when you are Olliefant (she/her) 04:10, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have looked back at the scholarly analysis I mentioned before for the episode, and it isn’t as much as I thought, so I’m not sure I would be able to create an Analysis section for it that wouldn’t count on only two or so sources. I have expanded the lead a bit and reworded some stuff in Production (feel free to revert if you disagree with the changes), and I think the article is ready to be nominated now Crystal Drawers 🍌 ^{(wanna talk?)} 04:28, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think some analysis could as a subheading of "Release" or maybe a part of reception? Either way, I still think even small section would be worth while. Regardless, I'll nominate it now. Olliefant (she/her) 04:32, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I used the only book analysis for the episode I could find and put it in a sub-section of Reception. Tomorrow, I’ll look through the online sources and try to dig up one or two more pieces of analysis that critics may have put out there Crystal Drawers 🍌 ^{(wanna talk?)} 04:44, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, by the way, I’m not sure how to add myself as a co-nominater, do you have to do it or do I have to? Crystal Drawers 🍌 ^{(wanna talk?)} 04:46, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Either one of us could do it, there really isn't a formal procedure for it but I listed you on it Talk:Last Words (How I Met Your Mother) Olliefant (she/her) 04:53, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Olliefant: I’ve finished Analysis, feel free to make any changes. Also, while looking through some sources, I found a list from Entertainment Weekly that says the episode was the 11th most purchased television episode on ITunes for the final week of January, 2011. Would this be worth including? Crystal Drawers 🍌 ^{(wanna talk?)} 15:16, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the harm. And by the way I'm game if you want to work on more articles together (currently putting together a season six good topic) Olliefant (she/her) 10:03, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good, I recently rewatched "Oh Honey" and I’m gonna try to expand the Production section of it today, so if you want to work on another article together than that would probably be a quick and painless one Crystal Drawers 🍌 ^{(wanna talk?)} 11:23, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I started working on that article, unrelated do you think Legendaddy (How I Met Your Mother) has FA potential? and if so would you be interested in co-noming it at FAC? Olliefant (she/her) 04:22, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think Legendaddy would need a little more information before it goes to FAC, right now it’s a solid GA but the Production and Reception sections could definitely use some work in both comprehensiveness and prose. If any season 6 episode has the most FAC potential, I’d say it’s Bad News, which has a treasure trove of info that I didn’t even use most of when I worked on the article initially, so lemme know if you’d be interested in expanding that one together. Also, I’ll do some work on Oh, Honey over the weekend, and maybe even get an Analysis section done similar to "Last Words". Crystal Drawers 🍌 ^{(wanna talk?)} 04:36, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Legendaddy needs wrok, but I'm down to work on Bad News Olliefant (she/her) 04:52, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Also, when my nomination for Forget-Me-Now is done, I plan on working on a non-Arrested Development FAC, and I found this subpage i started a while back for a HIMYM episode: User:Crystal Drawers/Purple Giraffe. Right now, it is not very good, and only has one source, but a google search shows a lot of sources that I think might make the article eligible for FAC (once it’s out of it’s current, stub-like state, obviously). So, if you want to work on a HIMYM FAC together, that’s probably the one I’ll personally focus most of my attention on. Feel free to edit the linked sub-page, I’d imagine it would be one of the FA-able episodes of the series just based on comprehensiveness Crystal Drawers 🍌 ^{(wanna talk?)} 14:24, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Alright Olliefant (she/her) 15:13, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Joseph Mary and Larry.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:36, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 12 January 2026. Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to amend the draft blurb, which can be found at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 2026, or to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/January 2026. Please keep an eye on that page, as notifications of copy edits to or queries about the draft blurb may be left there by those who assist the coordinators by reviewing the blurbs. I also suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from two days before it appears on the Main Page. Thanks, and congratulations on your work! SchroCat (talk) 10:51, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Curb Your Enthusiasm Season 3, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as B-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 4% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Standgusto (talk) 00:42, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Happy birthday! Hi Crystal Drawers! On behalf of the Birthday Committee, I'd like to wish you a very happy birthday! Enjoy this special day! DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 00:03, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Happy birthday! Hi Crystal Drawers! On behalf of the Birthday Committee, I'd like to wish you a very happy birthday! Enjoy this special day! AlphaCore talk 20:21, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your good article nomination of the article Switch Hitter has failed. See the review page for more information. If or when the reviewer's feedback has been addressed, you may nominate the article again. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Tyler17B -- Tyler17B (talk) 19:07, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Tyler17B: Hello, first of all, thank you for reviewing my nomination. I would just like to say im confused by your failing, you cite no citations in the plot as an example when citing sources in a plot is not needed (they’re supported by the episode, see any other episode article). The themes and analysis section uses all possible information available, same with reception. There are multiple good television articles much shorter than this one, im not sure you’re familiar with how television episode good articles usually work, but im not trying to discredit your opinion, it’s fine to fail the article, but the reasons you give are very odd Crystal Drawers (talk) 19:12, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Thanks for your comment. I haven't reviewed many television episodes, so I'll concede that not having the proper citations for the plot is not a reason to fail; my mistake. I apologize for any confusion there. I think the area you should focus your attention on is the themes & analysis section.

I understand that there are other articles shorter than this one, and I apologize if you took my review to mean that this failed based on length; rather, it's the depth of the themes that I think needs expanded upon. I feel that the section does a good job of explaining which themes the show is touching on, but it reads as a collection of individual points rather than a cohesive analysis.

As an example, the article states:

• Despite the series' more modern elements, it still adheres to the older television trope of a softball-themed episode, as noted by MLB journalist Michael Clair.
• The Bluths, despite living in luxury, feel adequate living in the company's disastrously-built model homes, which are known to have numerous safety violations and are not suitable for living; in the episode, Stan Sitwell mentions this, a rare event for the series, comparing the homes to a sinkhole, while George Michael, already used to these living conditions, optimistically likens the unsteadiness of the model homes to a salad dressing. Author Brett Gaul also shared a similar sentiment, finding the shoddy workmanship of the house—which is deliberately shown in the episode when the family repeatedly breaks pieces of furniture while trying to prove that the houses aren't poorly built—to be symbolic of how deceiving the family is, attempting to sell the unsafe homes to the public.

These are listed in the same paragraph, but they don't share a central topic or idea and have no real connection. The incest plot is another good example; I see how this is a recurring joke in the show, but I fail to see how the family being incestuous is a theme of the show. I think you can definitely articulate that point based on the sources you provided, it would be helpful if you spelled it out a bit more for the reader. Additionally, the softball episode reads more like a fun fact about a trope than an analysis of the show's themes.

To be super clear, I think this article is close to GA status. I just think this one section weighs it down a bit because it's a little bare-bones compared to the others. This is very good work overall and is nearly ready. Tyler17B (talk) 19:34, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thank you for clearing it up, I apologize if my tone was a little rude. If I were to fix these issues and renominate the article, would you be alright with reviewing it again? No pressure to do so, of course, just asking Crystal Drawers (talk) 19:36, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:AD Banana Stand.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:03, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your good article nomination of the article Forget-Me-Now is under review. See the review page for more information. This may take up to 7 days; feel free to contact the reviewer with any questions you might have. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Olliefant -- Olliefant (talk) 07:06, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your good article nomination of the article Forget-Me-Now has passed; congratulations! See the review page for more information. If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Olliefant -- Olliefant (talk) 03:45, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest you take the article to DYK, assuming it passes FAC you'd be able to pick up a WP:Four award Olliefant (she/her) 10:09, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the suggestion! Crystal Drawers 🍌 ^{(wanna talk?)} 12:09, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your good article nomination of the article Curb Your Enthusiasm season 3 is under review. See the review page for more information. This may take up to 7 days; feel free to contact the reviewer with any questions you might have. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of SignedInteger -- SignedInteger (talk) 17:05, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your good article nomination of the article Curb Your Enthusiasm season 3 has passed; congratulations! See the review page for more information. If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of SignedInteger -- SignedInteger (talk) 20:06, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your good article nomination of the article Switch Hitter is under review. See the review page for more information. This may take up to 7 days; feel free to contact the reviewer with any questions you might have. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of SignedInteger -- SignedInteger (talk) 23:06, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your good article nomination of the article Switch Hitter has passed; congratulations! See the review page for more information. If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of SignedInteger -- SignedInteger (talk) 23:47, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your good article nomination of the article Loud Night is under review. See the review page for more information. This may take up to 7 days; feel free to contact the reviewer with any questions you might have. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Olliefant -- Olliefant (talk) 02:46, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your good article nomination of the article Mary, Joseph and Larry is under review. See the review page for more information. This may take up to 7 days; feel free to contact the reviewer with any questions you might have. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Olliefant -- Olliefant (talk) 06:26, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Crystal Drawers. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:The BoJack Horseman Show, a page you created, has not been edited in at least five months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 16:07, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your good article nomination of the article Mary, Joseph and Larry has passed; congratulations! See the review page for more information. If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Olliefant -- Olliefant (talk) 01:42, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:Mary Joseph and Larry.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Whpq (talk) 03:27, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar

A bit belated, but congratulations on your work on The One Where Michael Leaves and for getting it to FA! Your work on American television shows and their associated articles is impressive and greatly appreciated, and I'm very excited to see the work you'll do in the future! Excellent work so far and wishing you all the best. :) Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 05:00, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Pokelego, this really means a lot to me :)

Your contributions to the site have always been an inspiration for me from the moment I started editing, so getting this from you is really touching. Thank you again, hope you have a good day! Crystal Drawers 🍌 ^{(wanna talk?)} 05:22, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly it's heartwarming to know I was able to inspire someone with my work. I'm glad they were able to make a positive impact! I wish you the best of luck with your future work! I know you're gonna go far. :) Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 01:50, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your good article nomination of the article Loud Night has passed; congratulations! See the review page for more information. If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Olliefant -- Olliefant (talk) 16:43, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your good article nomination of the article Creek (fandom) is under review. See the review page for more information. This may take up to 7 days; feel free to contact the reviewer with any questions you might have. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of RTSthestardust -- RTSthestardust (talk) 06:21, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your good article nomination of the article Creek (fandom) has passed; congratulations! See the review page for more information. If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of RTSthestardust -- RTSthestardust (talk) 06:46, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Ann Veal. Thanks! _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Edits)} 18:33, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! It’s very appreciated, and good luck with your editing, as well :) Crystal Drawers 🍌 ^{(wanna talk?)} 18:35, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ann Veal, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as B-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a fantastic rating for a new article, and places it among the top 4% of accepted submissions — major kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article. You may also consider nominating a fact from the article within the next 7 days to appear on the Main Page's "Did you know" section.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

CONFUSED SPIRIT(Thilio).Talk 01:34, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Crystal Drawers. Thank you for your work on Ann Veal. Another editor, Thilio, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Appreciated your hard work and dedication well sourced and comprehensive article. GOOD JOB

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Thilio}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

CONFUSED SPIRIT(Thilio).Talk 01:37, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! :) Crystal Drawers 🍌 ^{(wanna talk?)} 01:38, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:Curb Your Enthusiasm season 3.png. However, it is currently missing information on its copyright and licensing status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can verify that it has an acceptable license status and a verifiable source. Please add this information by editing the image description page. You may refer to the image use policy to learn what files you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. The page on copyright tags may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please also check any other files you may have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. — Ирука¹³ 15:22, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:Band in China.png. However, it is currently missing information on its copyright and licensing status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can verify that it has an acceptable license status and a verifiable source. Please add this information by editing the image description page. You may refer to the image use policy to learn what files you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. The page on copyright tags may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please also check any other files you may have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. — Ирука¹³ 15:23, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your good article nomination of the article Ann Veal is under review. See the review page for more information. This may take up to 7 days; feel free to contact the reviewer with any questions you might have. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of SignedInteger -- SignedInteger (talk) 21:07, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your good article nomination of the article Ann Veal has passed; congratulations! See the review page for more information. If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of SignedInteger -- SignedInteger (talk) 22:06, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	For your work on Ann Veal, whose one-day AFC-to-GA turnaround is one of the fastest I've encountered in my long WP tenure. Congrats! Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 01:21, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! :) Crystal Drawers 🍌 ^{(wanna talk?)} 01:44, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:Ann Veal.png. However, it is currently missing information on its copyright and licensing status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can verify that it has an acceptable license status and a verifiable source. Please add this information by editing the image description page. You may refer to the image use policy to learn what files you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. The page on copyright tags may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please also check any other files you may have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. — Ирука¹³ 07:21, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:Good Grief.png. However, it is currently missing information on its copyright and licensing status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can verify that it has an acceptable license status and a verifiable source. Please add this information by editing the image description page. You may refer to the image use policy to learn what files you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. The page on copyright tags may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please also check any other files you may have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. — Ирука¹³ 07:22, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, I fixed the copyright tag.–DMartin (talk) 07:31, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your good article nomination of the article ¡Amigos! is under review. See the review page for more information. This may take up to 7 days; feel free to contact the reviewer with any questions you might have. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of BedsAreBurning -- BedsAreBurning (talk) 19:27, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your good article nomination of the article ¡Amigos! has passed; congratulations! See the review page for more information. If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of BedsAreBurning -- BedsAreBurning (talk) 21:43, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Pine Barrens (The Sopranos) is the article. now even if you know nothing about the sopranos, you probably know that this episode is by far the most acclaimed episode in the show's run. i think this could be a GA like your articles or even an FA like The One Where Michael Leaves, since aside from acclaim, its production is (as far as i can recall) widely documented too. my notes are this:

1. are the credits even required? your episode articles do not have them at all, so is this a requirement?
2. the production section for pine barrens is abysmal, it's more like trivia than an actual production section.
3. the lack of a reception section is worrying.
4. more images! your articles make great use of images, i think an image of the actual New Jersey Pine Barrens and a caption about how they weren't able to film there would be great here.
5. better lead, the lead is way too short for an episode as acclaimed and documented as this one.

these are just my notes, you may give your own notes on it as well, but i am interested in doing the same effort that you do for Arrested Development, because likewise, The Sopranos is just as acclaimed if not moreso.

this will be my starting point, there are so many other episodes i could improve and my goal is to try to get every single episode to a GA, sort of like your goal but yeah, you get it. any help here (even if it is minor) is also welcome. thank you =) BedsAreBurning aka Sound🇵🇸 21:46, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I’d be happy to help you with the article. I don’t know much of The Sopranos, aside from watching the pilot a few years back, but I think this is a good thing, since it means I can offer a view on the article from someone who has no knowledge of the series. The article definitely could be a GA, and maybe even a FA, but it needs a lot of work, which I have no doubt you’re capable of doing :)

The credits are not required, they don’t add anything and are only supposed to be used in movie articles, not individual episode articles. If you want to incorporate actor names, do what I did with "¡Amigos!" and put them in parentheses in the Plot section (or lead, if you’d prefer). I agree that the production section is not good, so here’s my advice: Take the Valery’s death section, make it a sub-section of production, and do the same with the Title reference section; just add way more sources to it, not only is there more information you could definitely add, but many of the info in these two sections have no sources at all. Also, get rid of cultural references and deceased, the former is not needed in the article as it is not something professional episode articles will usually have (minus some old articles that shouldn’t be used as references), and the latter does not add anything to the article. Also, make Production all prose, there is no need for bullet points. Music can be moved to a sub-section of Production, if you can find sources for the info. Accolades also shouldn’t be a bullet pointed list; on top of this, find critical reception information, make that a Reception section, and make Accolades a sub-section of that

I know this is a lot (especially given how the articles still needs a bit more work on top of that), but, at its current state, the article is not very good. It can definitely be salvaged, but there is a lot of work that needs to be done. If you have any more questions, just let me know, I can help you fix the article more comprehensively if needed :) Crystal Drawers 🍌 ^{(wanna talk?)} 21:57, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I forgot to the comment on the lead and images. The lead definitely could be longer, I’d recommend waiting until you’ve finished work on the rest of the article, as then you can summarize it all adequately in the lead. Also, you could definitely use more images. Once you flesh out the article a bit, I’d be happy to come back and help you pick some images to aid commentary Crystal Drawers 🍌 ^{(wanna talk?)} 21:59, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for your comments. i know it's a lot of work, i'll probably make my own sandbox with the changes i have in mind. the biggest problem with a lot of these Sopranos episodes articles is formatting, take a random episode like Whoever Did This. the sections there are just as confusing as this one. Another problem is infobox images. you use frames from the episode in question, I think this is something that should be used in these articles too. i'm just not sure on what the ideal size for the image is. Ideally, every episode should have a frame in the infobox but I think it has to be from a scene that matters. to give an example of where it doesn't really work, I Dream of Jeannie Cusamano uses what I think is just a random frame instead of...literally any of the thousands of frames one could use for this. it will take a while, i think as i said before for each one i'll probably put the changes in my sandbox first and then when they're ready i'll transfer them over to the article in question but for a show as acclaimed as the Sopranos, the episode articles should be at least decent-ish. thank you for your comments, i'll be starting work on this soon. =) BedsAreBurning aka Sound🇵🇸 22:15, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Again, let me know of any more help you may need, you seem to be a very competent editor so I’m sure that you’ll be able to achieve your dream of getting every episode to GA status. Best of luck, Crystal Drawers 🍌 ^{(wanna talk?)} 22:18, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

update: i've done the first change. unlike the others, i did this on the actual article (i also expanded the caption to actually mention what is clearly an important piece of information about the episode's production). there is one thing that I find really weird in the accolades section: Former Norwegian Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg lists this episode as his favorite in an interview with the Norwegian newspaper Dagbladet.

i'm sorry but how is this an accolade? how is this even noteworthy? i'm surprised that's even mentioned since it is honestly way too trivial and more importantly, not an accolade. i think this could be a good example of WP:UNDUE, but i might be wrong on that end.

as i said earlier, the rest of the changes will be on my sandbox or in my notepad. for sources, i'll try to see what i can find there, though, i'm not sure what is and isn't reliable for this sort of article. this might be good, though. my main problem is finding any contemporary reviews, those would be fantastic for this. BedsAreBurning aka Sound🇵🇸 00:47, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

oh yeah! if you want to keep an eye on the progress, User:BedsAreBurning/sandbox. so far i've gotten a rough draft of the production section down (no citations, i am mostly taking these from what the article already has in its bulleted production section). i think you can already tell that looks much better than what is currently there. BedsAreBurning aka Sound🇵🇸 01:11, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be coming together nicely! Just one thing of note, the review you linked is from ScreenRant. While usually okay for good articles, ScreenRant sources are considered unreliable for featured articles, in case you wanted to bring the article to FA status one day. Crystal Drawers 🍌 ^{(wanna talk?)} 02:39, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

hmmm, i do think this has FA potential, and if you didn't notice, this episode is turning 25 this year, so if i got this to be an FA soon, it could be the FA of the day for its 25th anniversary. i think the production section's mostly finished, i don't see what else could be added and it's already quite long and informative. the next section i'll be working on is "themes and analysis", this should be an easy one to make as there are few shows that have received as much analysis as the sopranos over the decades. after that, critical reception (or critical reception and legacy) and then you'll be the judge on if it's ready. oh, and also, i'd be glad if you reviewed it when i nominate it for GAN, that way you can continue to help when it goes through FAC and the like. thanks for the help =) BedsAreBurning aka Sound🇵🇸 02:44, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I’ll probably be able to review the GAN. One thing I will say about the production section in your sandbox is that there are a lot of long quotes. This is frowned upon, especially for featured articles, and you could probably paraphrase all of it, minus some choice words Crystal Drawers 🍌 ^{(wanna talk?)} 03:12, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

check again. BedsAreBurning aka Sound🇵🇸 03:29, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

for the themes and analysis one, i'm not too sure on if i did it right. i'm mostly paraphrasing from that book i cited. BedsAreBurning aka Sound🇵🇸 03:41, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

i've made a rough draft of the critical reception section. now i did notice that your FA has a "release" section. i'm not sure how i'm going to get ratings information for this, sadly. the reception section is still very rough (there are many rankings that feature this episode, i am unsure of which ones are of a high enough quality to be used in the article) and i'm not sure if there's any other reviews that are high quality enough to use here aside from the AV club one. BedsAreBurning aka Sound🇵🇸 05:52, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If you’re looking for reviews from the time, one thing I found helpful is going into Google, searching the episode name.l, and going into the “Newspapers” sub-section of Books, which might have some older reviews Crystal Drawers 🍌 ^{(wanna talk?)} 13:06, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

alright, i'm handling the "critical reception and legacy" part now (just organising what i can use), i want to note that for "themes and analysis", there is another book i can use but its analysis is not as focused as yacowar's book. it's good, you can see it here, but it's more about the entire show than analysing specific episodes. it is good though (i'd assume it'd be even better than yacowar's book since it's published by Columbia University, could be wrong there)

i hope that the new sections added will be enough to get me in the top five of the article's authors, since per the GAN criteria, i can't nominate it if i'm not there. but yeah, there are a lot of books that can be used here. as for the "accolades" subsection of the reception section, the current article casually glosses over the fact that steve busecmi was nominated for an emmy for his directorial work, and that winter and patten were nominated as well. 53rd Primetime Emmy Awards might have the sources i can use for that part. that is all for now =) BedsAreBurning aka Sound🇵🇸 21:20, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve used the Emmy sites themselves for when I need to cite Emmy Awards, as with any other award, so that should be fine Crystal Drawers 🍌 ^{(wanna talk?)} 21:39, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

i did that, now there's something that's bugging me. For its 65th anniversary, TV Guide picked this as the fourth-best episode of the 21st century. (from the actual article), but it doesn't actually cite it! it does, but it is actually useless, i tried to find it but all i could get was a promotional preview of it and nothing else. is it possible that i'm not searching correctly? i'd love to cite this properly, but at the moment all i am finding are other sites that record this ranking. i'm organising each ranking to give each one a specific paragraph (assuming each one has comments about the episode) for obvious reasons, but this one is alluding me. BedsAreBurning aka Sound🇵🇸 21:52, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The cite it gives is an offline cite, which is fine, it’s from the magazine itself Crystal Drawers 🍌 ^{(wanna talk?)} 21:57, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

okay, i think the reception section is mostly done (judge for yourself), i did not include the TV guide ranking because you misunderstood my problem, my problem is that i can't access it myself, i don't really know how to use it properly aside from one sentence mentioning its ranking. the only section missing now is a "release" section. for this one, i don't think there's an easy way to get ratings since as we both know this aired on HBO, and they were not a typical network akin to ABC or Fox. other bits and pieces, such as air-date and home-media, i can find that, but for the former, which source would be best for that? a lot of sources from the day this aired would've mentioned the episode. thanks again =) BedsAreBurning aka Sound🇵🇸 22:34, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The season page might have the info. Go to the Episodes section and there’s a part on the right that will say how many viewers it got Crystal Drawers 🍌 ^{(wanna talk?)} 22:45, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I think you need to include reviews from the time. As one of the most iconic episodes of the show, if not the most iconic, there are surely still reviews from the time that can be accessed with a quick google search. Every review currently is just from rankings, which would probably be frowned upon when you bring it to FAC, or maybe even GAN depending on the reviewer. If you want, I can try to scout an older review to get it started Crystal Drawers 🍌 ^{(wanna talk?)} 22:58, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

i was trying to find some, there are two reviews of the DVD box-set that point it out as the best episode, but if you can help, then thank you very much! most of the results i got were just tv guides mentioning the episode airing or a plot summary, so, even a single contemporary review would help. BedsAreBurning aka Sound🇵🇸 23:07, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I went scouting, and found a review from the early 2000s which I incorporated into your sandbox. I also found some articles on the production, and I added some info from one of them into the actual article. Just from what I found, there is definitely a lot more information you could add to the article. My advice is to go to the News section of Google and sort by date, scrolling all the way to the end to find the plethora of reviews and interviews regarding the episode. The article is coming together nicely, but it’s not finished yet. One thing I’d like to note is that Pine Barrens is inevitably going to have a huge amount of related information to add, so, if you want my advice, I’d start working on some smaller Sopranos articles that would likely be less lengthy, since yiu can not only familiarize yourself with what makes an episode article tick, but you can also not burn yourself out from sorting through the many, many, many, many sources the episode has. Thats just my two cents, if you need anything else please feel free to let me know. Crystal Drawers 🍌 ^{(wanna talk?)} 23:12, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

i'll still stick with this one, if i feel burned out i can always take a break. but my question to you is this: is the information that you found new? new in the sense that it's not already featured in my sandbox or the production section as is. if not, then there is no reason to add it, if it is new, then there is a reason to add it. i say this because i'd rather avoid repeating the same information again and again. for the production section, there are other sources that repeat the same info the book mentions. lastly, as an unrelated note, for the time-slot this aired on, all i could find was this, it does not specify time-zones, though i'd assume it's EST since as a seattlelite, i know that us PST folk are peasants (i'm joking), i'm not sure how good of a source this is. i know that the sopranos was prime-time from day one, but just because it's an obviously factual statement does not negate the need for a source, as you probably know, so... BedsAreBurning aka Sound🇵🇸 23:33, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think TVTango should be fine. I didn’t checked the sources I found to see if they’re new information, so I’ll have to let you be the judge of whether they’re worthy or not Crystal Drawers 🍌 ^{(wanna talk?)} 23:35, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

i did check the new one you added, it does explain the discrepancy but it should also be a part of To Save Us All from Satan's Power as well, the article is clearly about both episodes, with its reference to a kid saying "Fuck Santa" actually coming from "To Save Us all from Satan's power". although, i should note that technically "Pine Barrens" is not a Christmas episode, but eh. the review is good, but if i am being honest here, there's a high likelihood that a lot of the new information we can find will probably be for reviews, not for the episode's production. i will check through a few other books about the show to see if there's any new info i could get from there, however. thank you so much for your help =) BedsAreBurning aka Sound🇵🇸 00:01, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

i've added more stuff from the books i have, not too much sadly. also, i checked and got four results for reviews from 2001-2002. two are about the season as a whole, and don't actually say much about the episode aside from the fact that valery's fate is not known. (see here) or it's just a minor mention (see here). i did find an article from The New Yorker from 2010, but it only mentions the episode twice. i'll do a few more searches, i still think the reception section could use more help with reviews from the 2000s, but if i can't find any (or can, but they're not actually reviews), then i don't see what more we can do here. BedsAreBurning aka Sound🇵🇸 01:07, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

alright, i've done a lot of searching. this is one i'm curious about, because is inverse.com a good source? i only found one discussion about it, so i can't really be certain here. the conclusion i got from these searches is this: times were different back then and i guess few people felt the need to make reviews of specific episodes from TV shows back then. that and churnalism sadly got big too (most of the results i got were nonsense like that). this means that perhaps it is better to assume that there is a smaller pool of reviews available per episode. for example, A Hit is a Hit, a random episode i just picked, might have even less reviews than Pine Barrens does. of course, there's also the chance that there are reviews from the time that are not online. for top newspapers, such as The New York Times, i went through their archive to search for anything related to the episode. aside from two mentions here and there, they did briefly mention the third season's DVD release. again, if you want, i can do one last search through physical newspapers for reviews. please let me know if inverse is good or not though =) BedsAreBurning aka Sound🇵🇸 02:13, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

As a professional magazine, I think Inverse should be good. I’m not certain, however, as I’m not the best with knowing about sources and stuff, so if you really want to be sure, I’d ask people who are more knowledgeable on the subject. I think, if you weren’t able to find any more review sources, the article would definitely suffice for a GAN, but the reviewers at the FAC might ask for more. But, the article is coming together nicely, good job on bringing such a significant episode of television to such solid quality :) Crystal Drawers 🍌 ^{(wanna talk?)} 02:32, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for your kind words =)

i'll add the inverse article and then add these three sections into the article proper. afterwards, the lead will be changed and then well, i think i've done enough work for now. i should note that the point i made earlier about times being different applies to the state the sopranos articles are in as well. these articles were made back when standards were lower, back when fancruft was more commonplace and as such, their strange layouts and poor sourcing and the like...they're a result of that. i think that if the pine barrens article were made today by a group of sopranos fans who knew what they were doing, it'd probably look similar to what i'm doing now.

as a final note, when i am fully finished, i will be taking a break from editing articles, at least to this level of detail, and during that break, i will probably watch the next episode article i am targeting to improve, Christopher, i went with it as my next choice because while pine barrens is considered one of the best episodes ever, christopher is a polarising watch, to say the least. that will likely be all, thank you again =) BedsAreBurning aka Sound🇵🇸 02:56, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

alright, i've nominated the article for GAN, this marks the end of what is hopefully the first in a long-line of sopranos articles that i'll improve, at least for now, there's still the FAC and all that, but as my mentor says, "patience is a virtue on wikipedia" =)

thank you so much for your help, i aspire to do what you did for Arrested Development but for The Sopranos instead. it won't be easy, but, nobody said editing wikipedia was easy... BedsAreBurning aka Sound🇵🇸 03:26, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind words, I’m very glad to see you have blossomed into a great editor so soon. I’m sure you’ll get every Sopranos episode to GA status, especially since you were able to do the most famous episode of the show so easily. Good luck :) Crystal Drawers 🍌 ^{(wanna talk?)} 03:51, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your good article nomination of the article Development Arrested is under review. See the review page for more information. This may take up to 7 days; feel free to contact the reviewer with any questions you might have. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Olliefant -- Olliefant (talk) 07:09, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

sallam alaikum, friend =) the article recently got promoted to GA, and because of that, i think you'd be able to help here: Wikipedia:Peer review/Pine Barrens (The Sopranos)/archive1. if there are any FAC reviewers you know that could also help, let me know =) BedsAreBurning aka Sound🇵🇸 20:33, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work on the article, friend! Sadly, I’m not sure if I’ll have the time to leave comments on the peer review or the FAC, and, since I edited the page it appears I am a top 5 contributor to the article, which I believe makes me unable to review it for either process. I haven’t been around the FAC block enough to know someone who could help, but my suggestion is to review some FACs yourself to get your name out there, which will help others feel happier to help you; same for FACs. Apologies for not being much help here, but I think the article is quite close to FA status, just needs some assessing from other reviewers who are much more experienced than me, and maybe from one who is more familiar with the series and would be able to offer more information to be added. Good luck, again! Have a good day/night :) Crystal Drawers 🍌 ^{(wanna talk?)} 20:42, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

understandable, though to note your comment about being a top 5 editor there, this is actually incorrect, you're in the top 10, but if you're unsure on if you have the time to help, then, that's understandable =)

if i recall, there are mentors for FACs, i'll see which one is active and can help here, i should note that the other person who can help here, SignedInteger (my mentor) is a top 5 editor for the article but they did review it for GAN, so they could still help here i think, would be weird if nobody asked them to help...

thank you so much for your help! this will likely be the first of a few FACs for sopranos episode articles (off the top of my head, College, Whitecaps and maybe even the pilot all have that potential to me). 1 article down, 85 more to go, but as always this will take a while, i don't expect to finish this effort before the end of the year, but we'll see =) BedsAreBurning aka Sound🇵🇸 20:51, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your good article nomination of the article Development Arrested has passed; congratulations! See the review page for more information. If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Olliefant -- Olliefant (talk) 06:25, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

sallam alaikum friend. this is a quick question, as right now, my router is out of service (i am editing this via my phone’s browser), but i found Television Without Pity and wanted to ask you how good of a source it is.

this is an archive link to a contemporary review they did on Pine Barrens, they also have contemporary reviews for many other sopranos episodes, and potentially episodes of shows that you make articles about too. i looked through the noticeboards and could not find a single mention of this website. i did find an FAC from 2009 mentioning it but that’s way too old to matter here. you might not know what this website is, so if you have no idea then that’s okay =)

if it is high quality then this is perfect for the articles i want to improve. although, i doubt many will consider it as such because it does use an AllMusic style (there’s a critic review and a user review, see the archival link i sent for more information)

related to this: i was doing the sandbox for Christopher (The Sopranos) and while searching for reviews i found an entertainment weekly review…about the next episode. the actual review was never archived, despite being mentioned in said review =(

thank you, and once the router gets fixed, i’ll try to respond to your replies (if there are any) =) BedsAreBurning aka Sound🇵🇸 21:56, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve never heard of the site, sadly, so I’m not really sure. It seems to have been used mainly for discussion forums, so I’m not sure if it’s reliable or not. I think starting a discussion at the sources notice board would help get you information from people more well-versed in the area than I am. Apologies for not being much help Crystal Drawers 🍌 ^{(wanna talk?)} 22:00, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

hmmm, i think i'll save the discussion for later. i do have four reviews for that episode organised but as they are all written long after the episode aired, i still wanted to find a contemporary review. as for the EW review i mentioned, here it is. to quote the first line of the review: Last week, I complained about ”The Sopranos” because it left so many plotlines dangling while focusing on a completely out-of-nowhere topic: Christopher Columbus.

sadly that review is not on the EW website, not like it would've changed what i already have planned to write ("commonly considered one of the weakest episodes of the series"), but yeah.

i'm using my phone's data to edit on my laptop because desperate times call for desperate measures =P

thanks for your help nonetheless, for this episode, i am still trying to write a production section, as unlike Pine Barrens, it may not shock you to know that few people involved with the show want to talk about how its worst episode was made. on a slightly related note: i'll be making a second sandbox for a different project i am working on that has no relation to The Sopranos, that way i don't have to use my main one for it.

again, thank you for trying to help, friend. =) BedsAreBurning aka Sound🇵🇸 22:11, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

an update: i am pretty much done with the sandbox (judge for yourself before i add it into the article proper), i think i did a decent job here. i really liked writing the "themes and analysis" section even if i might not be using the right links there but i don't know about that. thank you for your continued help =) BedsAreBurning aka Sound🇵🇸 23:46, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it’s coming together nicely. If you want someone to review a GAN for the article, feel free to ping me and I'll take it up, I already have a few comments in mind. Crystal Drawers 🍌 ^{(wanna talk?)} 23:54, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

i just nominated it, so you can go ahead now, i'd love to hear your comments about this one =) BedsAreBurning aka Sound🇵🇸 00:10, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Crystal Drawers. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Ted season 2, a page you created, has not been edited in at least five months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 17:08, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, you have been paired at good article review circles to review Phone Home (Legends of Tomorrow). At the same time, another user will be reviewing the article you nominated. Please wait 24 hours or until all users have accepted their nomination before starting your review in case a user in your circle decides to decline their invite.

To accept or decline this invitation to review the article, visit WT:GARC#Circle #65.

RedShellMomentum 01:06, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your good article nomination of the article Exit Strategy (Arrested Development) is under review. See the review page for more information. This may take up to 7 days; feel free to contact the reviewer with any questions you might have. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of RedShellMomentum -- RedShellMomentum (talk) 17:48, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your good article nomination of the article Exit Strategy (Arrested Development) has passed; congratulations! See the review page for more information. If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of RedShellMomentum -- RedShellMomentum (talk) 01:22, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, you have been paired at good article review circles to review Andrea Margutti Trophy. At the same time, another user will be reviewing the article you nominated. Please wait 24 hours or until all users have accepted their nomination before starting your review in case a user in your circle decides to decline their invite.

To accept or decline this invitation to review the article, visit WT:GARC#Circle #66.

RedShellMomentum 03:12, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, you have been paired at good article review circles to review Pilot (Legends of Tomorrow) . At the same time, another user will be reviewing the article you nominated. Please wait 24 hours or until all users have accepted their nomination before starting your review in case a user in your circle decides to decline their invite.

To accept or decline this invitation to review the article, visit WT:GARC#Circle #67.

Z1720 (talk) 04:56, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your good article nomination of the article Charity Drive is under review. See the review page for more information. This may take up to 7 days; feel free to contact the reviewer with any questions you might have. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Olliefant -- Olliefant (talk) 05:06, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your good article nomination of the article Chet's Shirt is under review. See the review page for more information. This may take up to 7 days; feel free to contact the reviewer with any questions you might have. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Olliefant -- Olliefant (talk) 05:07, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Crystal Drawers. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Death of Sarah Lynn, a page you created, has not been edited in at least five months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 01:07, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Crystal Drawers. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Sarah Lynn (BoJack Horseman), a page you created, has not been edited in at least five months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 02:07, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Crystal Drawers. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Pilot (Franklin & Bash), a page you created, has not been edited in at least five months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 10:08, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Crystal Drawers. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Themes of BoJack Horseman season 5, a page you created, has not been edited in at least five months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 17:08, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your good article nomination of the article The Cabin Show has passed; congratulations! See the review page for more information. If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Gommeh -- Gommeh (talk) 16:07, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Crystal Drawers. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:The History of The Simpsons Hit & Run World Records, a page you created, has not been edited in at least five months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 15:08, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your good article nomination of the article Chet's Shirt has passed; congratulations! See the review page for more information. If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Olliefant -- Olliefant (talk) 15:23, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your good article nomination of the article Charity Drive has passed; congratulations! See the review page for more information. If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Olliefant -- Olliefant (talk) 20:37, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your good article nomination of the article Visiting Ours is under review. See the review page for more information. This may take up to 7 days; feel free to contact the reviewer with any questions you might have. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of EF5 -- EF5 (talk) 18:04, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]