Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/February 2024
Only TFA schedulers should make changes to the table immediately below. But please feel free to note any concerns, queries or thoughts below it. Thanks.
Discussion of scheduling of Annunciation (Memling)[edit]
Opening the discussion here. According to these comments there is apparently only a single day in the calendar year that's appropriate for this article to be featured on the main page. Pinging Gog the Mild, Wehwalt and Gerda Arendt. Please discuss and let us know what is decided. Happy New Year to all! Victoria (tk) 15:45, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- The article is scheduled to run as TFA on the 13 February with the agreement of the two co-nominators. And not before time IMO. I am not sure that there is anything to discuss, unless one of the co-nominators would prefer a different date. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:50, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) I disagree that there is only a single day, and I was unclear, obviously, sorry about that. I asked for the reason for the date 13 February. I looked (before asking) if that was the painter's birthday, or any other date connection, but found nothing. Please consult Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Annunciation (Memling) (two nominations), with the line I still believe to be valid (and not by me): "25 March is the date with the strongest association with the Annunciation". I will not fight 13 Feb, - I just try to understand. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:11, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- It is indeed the date with the strongest association, and 13 February has none. So? The majority of TFAs run on dates which are essentially random. February will be no different and Annunciation will be one of 15 February TFAs with no discernible link to the date on which they run. And thank you for acquiescing in spite of not understanding, I realise how difficult that can be to do. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:58, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
philosophy 
[edit]
i had two questions about this blurb.
- am i the only one that feels that the link to the "ordinary language philosophy" article seems a bit unnatural? the context in the blurb suggests to me that the targeted article would cover the analysis of language, while the "ordinary language philosophy" article seems to specifically cover the analysis of language used in analysis. (it also takes one view of the issue; the "ideal language philosophy" article takes a contrasting view.)i am, however, having trouble determining what would be a better article to link, if there is any, so i can't really suggest any improvements other than possibly simply removing the link if it seems unnatural to others as well. the "philosophy of language" article appears to focus more on the nature of language rather than something that can be used practically as a philosophical method. the "linguistic description" article might be relevant, but the methods described there are used primarily to describe a language rather than to make philosophical arguments.
- In philosophy, there is both the analysis of language as a topic (trying to understand what language is) and the analysis of language as method (trying to understand all kinds of philosophical topics by looking at how normal people use language). The sentence in questions is about philosophical methods, which fits the description in the linked article Ordinary language philosophy (OLP[1]) is a philosophical methodology. However, the blurb does not have the space to explain this difference, which is why you are probably right that the link could be confusing to the reader. The link is not essential. I removed it for now but I don't feel very strongly either way. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:02, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
- i am admittedly not familiar enough with islamic philosophy to know whether the link text that targets the "Islamic philosophy" article should read "Arabic-Persian" or "Arabic–Persian". however, i did notice that the cited grayling source uses the term with an en dash. would it be more prudent to follow grayling?
dying (talk) 23:59, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
- I agree, this should probably be an en dash. Grayling uses the en dash and MOS:ENBETWEEN and MOS:DUALNATIONALITIES also point in that direction. I implemented the change. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:02, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
brother jonathan [edit]
i admittedly had trouble confirming that the novel was "possibly the longest single work of American fiction until well into the twentieth century". the article does not appear to provide any examples of longer twentieth-century american works. (it mentions cooper's littlepage manuscripts trilogy, but i am assuming that this is not considered a single work, and the trilogy was published in the nineteenth century anyway.) i suppose the word "possibly" could do a lot of heavy lifting here, but ideally i was hoping to find some reason for why the blurb mentions "well into the twentieth century". was it simply because loshe's speculative statement was published in 1958?
by the way, i was admittedly surprised at the sparsity of links in this blurb. aside from the standard link to the featured article, i found only three links in the prose, so i took the liberty of adding a few more that i thought would be appropriate, including one that was present in the article lead. feel free to revert any of the links i added if there are any objections. dying (talk) 21:59, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for the edits, dying! I think the blurb does well to have those extra Wikilinks. If you are aware of a reliable source that documents the word count of all American fiction to date, perhaps we could put the issue of comparing length in strictly quantitative terms. Page counts are easy to compare, but that doesn't really do it when you account for the variation in typesetting. In the absence of such a published analysis, I have two scholars' opinions cited in the article: Sivils's comparison to the Littlepage Manuscripts trilogy (yes, 3 different novels published over 2 years), and Loshe, who said exactly this: "Brother Jonathan, or the New-Englanders, published in London in 1825, enjoys the distinction of being the longest work in early American fiction, if not in all American fiction, containing, as it does, over thirteen hundred good-sized, solidly printed pages." The "if not in all American fiction" line, published as it is in 1958, is the basis for the article's "possibly ... well into the twentieth century" claim. So I wish I could say when, if yet, another American author has ever outdone this novel in length, but I'm not aware of another comprehensive, comparative analysis that takes into account literature published after 1958, as well as before. I appreciate your attention to the article and the blurb and I hope that answers the questions you were wondering on. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:41, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
williamsburgh savings bank tower [edit]
should the "and" in "Halsey, McCormack and Helmer" be replaced with "&"? all the reliable sources that i have seen so far appear to use the ampersand when stating the firm's proper name. (see, e.g., here, here, here, and here.) mos:& suggests "retain[ing] an ampersand when it is a legitimate part of the style of a proper noun, the title of a work, or a trademark". the targeted "Mancini Duffy" article also uses an ampersand. (note that some of the aforementioned reliable sources also spell "McCormack" as "McCormick", but i believe both the blurb and featured article are currently spelling george h. mccormack's name correctly.) dying (talk) 19:59, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
- The company's own web site and Bloomberg both use an ampersand, so I have changed the blurb accordingly. Another good spot dying Gog the Mild (talk) 20:48, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks @dying for the catch and @Gog the Mild for the change. I agree that changing "and" to an ampersand in Halsey, McCormack & Helmer's name would be best. – Epicgenius (talk) 00:02, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
mount berlin [edit]
i had four questions about this blurb. i should first note, though, that i have very little expertise in the subject matter, so i apologize in advance if any of these questions are surprisingly stupid, or if i am raising a point about terminology that is generally accepted by volcanologists.
- is the blurb stating that the main vent of berlin proper and that of merrem peak are both parasitic vents? the linked "parasitic cone" article mentions that parasitic cones are not part of a volcano's central vent, and i would have assumed that the main vent of berlin proper was considered the central vent, but since it appears that merrem peak's main vent used to be the more active one, i'm not really sure about this.
- is it appropriate to give two dimensions for the width of the crater on merrem peak? it only occurred to me after reading this blurb that i actually have no idea if this sort of construction is standard or not, but i thought i might ask because i generally use the word "width" to only refer to one dimension. if this is something that should be addressed, i admittedly am not sure how best to reword it. perhaps "2.5-by-1-kilometre (1.6 mi × 0.6 mi) crater mouth" could work.
- to me, it seems strange to state that a volcanic rock "occur[s] as lava flows" when "lava flow" often refers to moving forms of lava. would it be helpful to add "solidified" before "lava flows"?
- i am admittedly finding the phrase "late Pleistocene-Holocene" very confusing. i assume that it is referring to a range, and that "late" only modifies "Pleistocene", but i was only able to figure this out after examining the article. i recognize that this issue came up during the fac nomination, though i admittedly don't really understand the discussion there. (i would have suggested "late Quaternary", as Volcanoguy did, but i see that the fac nominator had issues with that phrase.) in any case, if activity definitively lasted until the holocene, would it be appropriate to simply drop "late Pleistocene"? alternatively, if it is unclear whether or not the volcano has been active during the holocene, perhaps something like "at least the late Pleistocene" might work instead.
i recognize that addressing some of these questions may end up lengthening the blurb beyond the character limit. if so, i might suggest replacing "occurs which forms" with "is forming", or replacing the names of some of the metric units with abbreviations. dying (talk) 23:59, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
- Berlin Crater is not a parasitic vent, only Merrem Peak is one. I think two dimensions are appropriate, craters are seldom perfectly circular. I guess we can put "solidified" before "lava flow". The problem with "late Quaternary" is that it's too long a timespan; for many practical purposes it is important to specify "Holocene"/"last 10,000 years" - perhaps spelling out the hyphen as "and" would make it clearer. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:12, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
- Jo-Jo Eumerus:
- thanks for making it clear that berlin crater is not a parasitic vent. i think i may have interpreted "consisting" in the blurb to be describing what the parasitic vents are, rather than what the mountain is, leading me to believe that the blurb was stating that both of the volcanoes are parasitic vents. could this point be made more clear by simply replacing "parasitic vents consisting of two coalesced volcanoes" with "parasitic vents. It consists of two coalesced volcanoes"?
- i agree that mentioning two dimensions for the crater is appropriate. i was simply wondering whether it was appropriate to state the width of a crater in two dimensions, as my previous understanding of the word "width" is that it only refers to one dimension. is doing so common amongst volcanologists?
- oh! i did not realize that "late Quaternary" was considered a long timespan, since both the quaternary and the pleistocene are about 2.58 million years long. i think replacing the hyphen with "and" does make the sentence more clear, though i admittedly remain confused about why the late pleistocene is mentioned in the first place. the article explicitly states that mount berlin was active during the holocene, so i am assuming that there is no issue of uncertainty. to make my concern more clear, consider the following three sentences.
the second sentence is an improvement on the first, but the third pretty much provides the same information as the second.wikipedia was active from the 2000s into the late 2010s-2020s.
wikipedia was active from the 2000s into the late 2010s and 2020s.
wikipedia was active from the 2000s into the 2020s.
- dying (talk) 00:59, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
- Change #1 seems OK to me. #2, yes, I think width is commonly used in this context. #3 as in "late Pleistocene into the Holocene"? That works. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:21, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
- Jo-Jo Eumerus, apologies for troubling you again on this last point. what i was proposing is the following.
i had difficulty understanding what you meant by "late Pleistocene into the Holocene", and wasn't sure if you meant one of the two alternatives below.alt1: The volcano was active from the Pliocene into the Holocene.
alt2 is true, but ignores the time the volcano was active during the pliocene, so i wasn't sure if that was what you meant. alt3 is also true, but also sounds rather redundant, so i hesitated to implement it in case i was misinterpreting you. to be clear, i am okay with any of these options, but just wanted to make sure that i understood you correctly. dying (talk) 03:59, 4 February 2024 (UTC)alt2: The volcano was active from the late Pleistocene into the Holocene.
alt3: The volcano was active from the Pliocene into the late Pleistocene into the Holocene.
- ALT1 is even better. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:07, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
- Jo-Jo Eumerus, apologies for troubling you again on this last point. what i was proposing is the following.
- Change #1 seems OK to me. #2, yes, I think width is commonly used in this context. #3 as in "late Pleistocene into the Holocene"? That works. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:21, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
- Jo-Jo Eumerus:
- Ravenpuff, i am not sure i understand why you replaced "which" with "that" in this edit. personally, i would have simply dropped "occurs which", but i had thought the prose had been grammatically correct as is, so i had left it alone. is there something that i am missing? dying (talk) 19:59, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
angel aquino [edit]
i had three questions about this blurb.
- are there articles on wikipedia on either the star awards in general or the golden screen awards in general? i ended up removing the links to the "PMPC Star Awards for Movies" article and the "Golden Screen TV Awards" article from the blurb because i felt that they were misleading. i tried rewording the blurb to link to both the film and television versions of the awards, but the blurb is already near the character limit, and surprisingly, i was unable to find an article specifically about the film version of the golden screen awards either.
- would it be an improvement to replace the wording "the Philippine submissions" with "submitted by the Philippines"? currently, the wording may suggest that the philippines has only submitted two films for the award so far.
- is there a reason why the "gender equality" and "women's rights" articles are linked in the article lead, but not in the blurb? while preparing my copyedit, i had originally linked those two articles to conform with the article lead, but then i realized that the links were deliberately removed here. to be clear, i don't have a personal preference.
dying (talk) 20:59, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Dying: ok with the suggested changes, I've incorporated them into the blurb. Pseud 14 (talk) 23:30, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
dorothy l. sayers [edit]
i had two questions about this blurb.
- should be a comma after "Oxford", either due to mos:geocomma or otherwise? i am admittedly unsure, so i thought i might raise the issue here. i have no personal preference either way.
- the blurb is currently worded to suggest that the man born to be king is one play, although the article body describes it as "a cycle of twelve radio plays". is the current wording in the blurb accurate enough, or should it be rephrased?
dying (talk) 21:59, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
- Hi Dying, I’ve added the geocomma. It isn’t always used in BrEng, which is why it wasn’t in there in the first place, but people get really marked when it’s missing, so it’s best it’s included.
- The Man is a play cycle. I think it was probably OK, but this being WP, it is inevitable that someone would go to ERRORS with a flimsy complaint, so I’ve tweaked it slightly. Is that OK, and has it affected the word count too much? Cheers - SchroCat (talk)
- SchroCat, thanks for addressing this issue. i like the rewrite, but unfortunately, it currently violates wp:mpnoredirect and mos:seaofblue. (i don't think i was familiar with those guidelines until i spent more time than i'd care to admit at wp:errors, so it's completely understandable that you may have missed them.) would the following rewording be acceptable?
| the [[play cycle]] ''[[The Man Born to Be King]]'', broadcast in 1941 and 1942, | |
| → | ''[[The Man Born to Be King]]'', a [[list of literary cycles|play cycle]] broadcast in 1941 and 1942, |
- apologies for the nitpick! dying (talk) 03:59, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
- I tend to ignore seaofblue if it means rewording to something that increases the word count and is more cumbersome to read. The fact people at errors obsess over that tiny part of the MOS but are happy to see inelegant prose is always something of a mystery to me. - SchroCat (talk) 07:53, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
- i completely understand your position, SchroCat. i've actually generally ignored mos:seaofblue until i realized that the issue comes up somewhat regularly at wp:errors. (some of my earlier tfa blurb copyedits have actually introduced mos:seaofblue violations when there weren't any before!) in any case, i don't think it is strongly enforced, so i have no issues leaving the wording be if it is preferred.however, wp:mpnoredirect is fairly strongly enforced at wp:errors. would you be okay with changing the link that currently points to the "play cycle" redirect to directly target the "list of literary cycles" article instead? obviously, the prose would remain unchanged. dying (talk) 19:59, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
- I tend to ignore seaofblue if it means rewording to something that increases the word count and is more cumbersome to read. The fact people at errors obsess over that tiny part of the MOS but are happy to see inelegant prose is always something of a mystery to me. - SchroCat (talk) 07:53, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
- apologies for the nitpick! dying (talk) 03:59, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
- What, we don't get to make jokes about having a comma after Oxford? Gog the Mild (talk) 22:40, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
siege of bukhara [edit]
although it is true that genghis khan divided his army before attacking bukhara, i feel that mentioning this in the blurb isn't really helpful without further context. i'm admittedly not actually sure whether the split mentioned in the blurb refers to when genghis left muqali during the invasion of china, or when the mongol forces split to attack multiple areas in the khwarazmian empire while leaving chagatai and ogedai with the siege at otrar. (in fact, before i read the article, i think i had the impression that genghis split the army into multiple forces to attack bukhara from different angles.)
as mentioning the army's division doesn't really seem to help explain the siege itself and has the potential to cause confusion without further explanation, would it be better to simply drop the "Dividing his army,"? alternatively, perhaps "Dividing his army, Genghis led a force" could be replaced with "Genghis personally led a force", which may suggest that there were other mongolian forces elsewhere at the time that he wasn't personally commanding. dying (talk) 02:59, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
- Second option implemented; thanks for your work dying. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 03:06, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
- I have done a further light copy edit which you may both wish to have a look at. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:47, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
- Gog, the only concern i have is the description of the timing of the citadel's capture. it wasn't clear to me whether, in the article body, the "ten days" and "twelfth day" mentioned are descriptions relative to the start of the siege, or to the surrender of the outer city, so i am not sure whether adding "further" to the blurb is accurate. also, the citadel fell two days after it was breached, which may be why the blurb's original wording used the more vague phrase "less than two weeks". i am just guessing here, though, and don't have access to the cited sources, so i am hoping that AirshipJungleman29 will have more insight on this point.aside from that, the edit looks good. i had been considering splitting the sentence similarly, so am glad that you ended up doing so. dying (talk) 23:59, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
- dying, the breach was made ten days after the 10th Feb capture of the outer city, and the citadel itself fell two days later. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:03, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
- Gog, the only concern i have is the description of the timing of the citadel's capture. it wasn't clear to me whether, in the article body, the "ten days" and "twelfth day" mentioned are descriptions relative to the start of the siege, or to the surrender of the outer city, so i am not sure whether adding "further" to the blurb is accurate. also, the citadel fell two days after it was breached, which may be why the blurb's original wording used the more vague phrase "less than two weeks". i am just guessing here, though, and don't have access to the cited sources, so i am hoping that AirshipJungleman29 will have more insight on this point.aside from that, the edit looks good. i had been considering splitting the sentence similarly, so am glad that you ended up doing so. dying (talk) 23:59, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
- I have done a further light copy edit which you may both wish to have a look at. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:47, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
elizabeth maitland, duchess of lauderdale [edit]
i had trouble finding anything in the article, either in the lead or the body, mentioning that the remodelling of ham house included "filling it with luxury furnishings and artwork". i assume that the statement is true, but was surprised that this was explicitly mentioned in the blurb when the closest i could find to such an assertion in the article was that the couple aimed to "modernise the property according to the latest style". if indeed the assertion in the blurb is not currently made in the article, should it be?
by the way, i was unable to determine why, aside from the standard link to the featured article, there were only five links in the blurb's prose, so i added two links to articles that the article lead also targets. i am not sure if something unusual happened with the links when this blurb was drafted, as i could not figure out how the link for lionel tollemache ended up targeting an article on one of his descendants instead, so i thought i might mention it in case there was a faulty process somewhere. feel free to revert either of the links i added if there are any objections. dying (talk) 01:59, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
- Hi @Dying fair points. I've made a small expansion to the article to clarify that point. I'd also refer to the Death & legacy section, and Elizabeth's patronage of the leading artists of the day. And I appreciate all your edits, thank you. Isaksenk (talk) 19:02, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
taxi driver [edit]
i had two questions about this blurb.
- i don't know if my engvar radar is being a bit too sensitive, but i think the use of "named for" may be phrasing more commonly found in north american english than elsewhere. (oxford seems to also acknowledge this distinction, as seen here.) this seems to conflict with the rest of the blurb, which appears to have been written in british english. would it be more appropriate to use "named after" instead of "named for"?
- I think you are being a little sensitive. As a native English English speaker it didn't jar when I closed the FAC and rereading just I had to think a little to see why it may not be quite right. I do take the point about for v after, but in terms of normal language I think that ship has sailed. If PMC wishes to tweak it, fine, but I think as the TFA team we can accept it as is.Gog the Mild (talk) 14:14, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
- i admittedly share the same concern that PCN02WPS raised during the fac nomination discussion, and feel that some sort of link should be provided for readers unfamiliar with the term "clubbing", as used in this context. i see that the fac nominator addressed this issue by replacing an instance of "clubbing" in the article body with "dancing at a nightclub", but i am hesitant to make the same change unilaterally to the blurb, both because i am unable to determine why the same change was not made to the article lead, and because i think that the blurb is already fairly lengthy enough as is. to avoid adding a few extra characters, would it be appropriate to simply either (1) link "clubbing" to the "nightclub" article, as was originally suggested by PCN02WPS; or (2) link "clubbing" to the "clubbing (subculture)" article?
- I think the "dancing at a nightclub" phrase rather misses a number of nuances and wish PMC hadn't changed it in that way, but it was their call. For the lead I agree with dying and have implemented their option 2. PMC ? Gog the Mild (talk) 14:14, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
- I liked the original better anyway so I've swapped it back. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:29, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
dying (talk) 00:59, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
- for vs after - it's not an intentional thing for me, go ahead and change it
why the same change was not made to the article lead
mainly because I tend to think of the lead less than the body and it didn't occur to me- I don't really mind one way or another which you link to either in the blurb or the article
- ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:39, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
Gog, regarding your comment here, you are correct in remembering that images featured at dyk must also be used in the associated article (or at least be a crop of one such image), as noted at wp:dykimg, though i don't think tfa has a similar requirement. is this why the blurb for taxi driver was not drafted with an image? i know two tfa blurbs have used this image of mcqueen before (here and here), and neither of the two articles featured use the image. i wasn't sure why this blurb didn't include the same image, but didn't think to question it at the time, as i figured that perhaps someone involved with the drafting process mentioned not wanting to use the image a third time.
would running this blurb with an image be preferred? it is unfortunate that we seem to only have that one image of mcqueen. (commons has this video featuring photos of mcqueen, which was released on youtube under a creative commons license, but i can't tell whether the person who uploaded the video to youtube had the photographer's permission to release the photos under that license.) it wasn't difficult to cut this blurb down to 1025 characters or fewer without significant loss of information, so i've posted a possible revision below.
Taxi Driver is the second collection by British designer Alexander McQueen (pictured) for his eponymous fashion house. Named for the 1976 film Taxi Driver, and his father, a London taxicab driver, the collection was developed after McQueen graduated from art school in 1992, when he was unemployed and seeking a job in the fashion industry. Reluctant to launch his own company, he passed the time by designing. The collection included experimental techniques and silhouettes, notably the bumster trouser, whose extremely low waist exposed the top of the intergluteal cleft. In lieu of a traditional fashion show, Taxi Driver was exhibited in a room at the Ritz Hotel during London Fashion Week in March 1993. Aided by magazine editor Isabella Blow, the collection earned positive reviews. After the exhibition, McQueen packed the clothing into bin bags and went clubbing. He hid the bags in the rubbish behind one club. When he returned the next day, the rubbish had been removed. Nothing remains of the collection. (Full article...)
PMC, of course i'll defer to your preferences, but i thought i might suggest a version of the blurb with the image of mcqueen in case it was something that you were interested in. dying (talk) 10:59, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
- Please let's not use the image for a third time. It's just the worst photo. He's making a stupid face, his head's off to the side, he's tweaking his ear, the whole thing just looks silly and I deliberately avoid using it in articles for that reason. I doubt the Nowness video was intentionally released under CC especially given that it's been changed, but even if it was, I very much doubt that they would have had Waplington's permission to CC license the photos from his then-recent book.
- I would rather use no image than use that one again. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:08, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
.jpg)
_Ausschnitt_Isabella_Blow.jpg)
- yeah, PMC, it's a rather unfortunate photo. if you're interested, there is a free photo of blow we could use, and commons has a decent number of photos of the ritz london in this category, including the one at right. running the blurb with no image is also fine if you'd prefer.also, Gog, i read this comment again and am not sure if you are stating that you'd prefer to require images selected for tfa blurbs to appear in the corresponding articles as well. if so, i have no issues following that preference, though this will mean that some images scheduled for the coming weeks will have to be either swapped out or added to the associated articles. also, in that case, you can ignore the proposal above; i only brought it up in case there was a misunderstanding. dying (talk) 20:59, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
- I'm aware of the picture of Issie but I think it's misleading to use it as the article isn't really about her. Same with the Ritz image. If we absolutely insist on an image I would rather use the bumster pic from Highland Rape because at least that demonstrates McQueen's clothing, but my preference would be no image. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:12, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
- no worries, PMC. running the blurb without an image is fine. i believe there has been at least one instance of a nominator asking why an image wasn't used after the blurb had already been drafted, so i just wanted to make sure that you had some input if you had wanted this blurb to run with an image. dying (talk) 21:59, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
- Nah I'm usually pretty hands off wrt TFA blurbs. Fortunately, future McQueen collection TFAs should have usable photos - we now have at least one photo of something from every extant collection save Banshee. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:13, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
- wonderful. i see that the upcoming blurb for eye already features one of these images. thanks, LilianaUwU, for donating the recent batch of photos of mcqueen's work. dying (talk) 05:59, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
- I mean, I had to. It saved PMC a plane trip to Québec City. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 14:22, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
- I mean, I had to. It saved PMC a plane trip to Québec City. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 14:22, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
- wonderful. i see that the upcoming blurb for eye already features one of these images. thanks, LilianaUwU, for donating the recent batch of photos of mcqueen's work. dying (talk) 05:59, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
- Nah I'm usually pretty hands off wrt TFA blurbs. Fortunately, future McQueen collection TFAs should have usable photos - we now have at least one photo of something from every extant collection save Banshee. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:13, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
- no worries, PMC. running the blurb without an image is fine. i believe there has been at least one instance of a nominator asking why an image wasn't used after the blurb had already been drafted, so i just wanted to make sure that you had some input if you had wanted this blurb to run with an image. dying (talk) 21:59, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
annunciation [edit]
my copyedit for this blurb largely consists of the changes i had already made to this blurb last year, as i am assuming that my earlier copyedit was accidentally overlooked when the blurb was posted this year. feel free to revert if there are any objections. dying (talk) 01:59, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
- My fault, sorry dying. I picked on the wrong old version to cut and paste in when I scheduled it. Thanks for spotting this. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:59, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
annie dove denmark [edit]
i had three questions about this blurb.
- what kind of diploma did denmark receive in 1908? the blurb and article lead calls it an "artist's diploma", but the article body refers to it as an "artists' diploma". the cited hester source mentions her receiving an "Artists Diploma", so i admittedly am unsure if there is a definitive answer to this question.
- i found it strange that one of the sentences in the blurb states a claim about denmark that it then immediately acknowledges is false. as someone who was unfamiliar with denmark until reading this blurb, i had initially thought that the blurb was stating something as fact, so i was a bit thrown off by the end of the sentence, which led me to read the first part of the sentence again to understand what exactly was being presented as false. would it be more helpful to state upfront that the claim being described is untrue? below is one possible way of rewriting this sentence.
| She is commonly cited as the first woman president of a college or university in South Carolina, though this claim is incorrect. | |
| → | She is commonly incorrectly cited as the first woman president of a college or university in South Carolina. |
- i am currently finding the clause "attendance increased after World War II when the school enrolled the most men since becoming co-educational in 1931" to be somewhat unclear. "after World War II" is somewhat nebulous, so i was unable to tell from the blurb alone if the trend only lasted one year or is still ongoing. similarly, the word "most" is only qualified temporally from one side ("since [...] 1931"), so the blurb may be suggesting that, if there was a surge of men attending for one year during the 1940s, the college has never had as many men enrolling since.i actually found the wording used in the article lead more clear: "as World War II ended" restricts the duration of increasing attendance to a few years, while "more men than it ever had since [...] 1931" makes it clear that only previous enrollment numbers were being compared (as otherwise, something like "than it ever had since [...] 1931, or would" may be more appropriate). i am, however, concerned about a slight discrepancy: the lead mentions that attendance increased during the last years of the war, while the blurb states that it happened after the war. as the article body explicitly gives attendance numbers for the academic year of 1946–1947, i assume that the latter was meant. would the following rewrite be accurate and more clearly get the point across?
| attendance increased after World War II when the school enrolled the most men since becoming co-educational in 1931 | |
| → | attendance increased for several years after World War II when the school enrolled more men than it ever had since becoming co-educational in 1931 |
by the way, i was unable to determine why, aside from the standard link to the featured article, the nominated blurb only had four links in its prose, so i added two more links: "co-educational" was present in the article lead, and "junior college" in the article body. i recognize that world war ii is often linked in blurbs, and that it is currently linked in the article lead, but i decided against linking it in this blurb because links to either of the world wars are often removed from blurbs as instances of overlinking, and the blurb on denmark is not primarily about warfare. feel free to revert either of the links i added if there are any objections. dying (talk) 03:59, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Dying: Thanks for your comments. I have changed to
She is commonly, though incorrectly, cited as the first woman president...
and the second to your suggestion. As for the diploma, I thinkartist's
makes more sense thanartists'
so I've amended the article body to reflect this. I also tweaked your wording re:junior college to read...to a two-year junior college, making it the first junior college...
in order to improve the flow just a bit. If these changes are unsatisfactory (or something else needs fixing) feel free to give me a ping. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 04:29, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
ernest shackleton [edit]
i had four questions about this blurb.
- the blurb uses the stylization "Nimrod expedition" to refer to the expedition, even though (1) the linked article appears to use "Nimrod Expedition" instead; (2) the blurb capitalizes the 'E' in "Imperial Trans-Antarctic Expedition" and "Shackleton–Rowett Expedition"; and (3) the featured article itself is inconsistent, using "Nimrod expedition", "Nimrod Expedition", and "Nimrod Expedition". should the 'E' in "Nimrod expedition" be capitalized in the blurb? i hesitated to make this change unilaterally when i noticed that the article consistently uses "Discovery expedition" without a capital 'E'.
- i feel that the blurb is being somewhat inaccurate when it refers to endurance as the imperial trans-antarctic expedition's ship, as there were at least two ships involved, endurance and aurora. would it be better to avoid suggesting that the expedition only had one ship by replacing "its ship, Endurance," with "the ship Endurance"?
- the "South Georgia" article suggests to me that the name of the island is "South Georgia" rather than "South Georgia Island". would it be appropriate to replace "South Georgia Island" in the blurb with either "South Georgia island" or "the island of South Georgia"?
- is there a source for the distance of 720 nautical miles? google tells me that the distance from elephant island to south georgia is 1321 km, or about 713 nmi, so presumably, the route shackleton actually took was decently longer than that. various sources seem to tell me that the voyage was actually about 800 nmi long. (some state that it was about 800 mi long, which is presumably a result of inadvertently conflating mi with nmi, since 800 mi is actually shorter than 713 nmi.)
by the way, i also noticed that, although the nimrod expedition is described as having taken place in "1907–1909", the section in the featured article covering the expedition begins by mentioning that nimrod left new zealand in 1908. i assume that the date of 1907 is based on when nimrod left england, but thought i might mention this here in case the issue comes up at wp:errors.
on a completely different note, i also thought i might mention that i found it an interesting coincidence that a genus of fungi that the article mentions was named after shackleton, shackletonia, is also a member of the family teloschistaceae, the subject of a featured article scheduled to run four days after the one on shackleton.
courtesy pinging Rodney Baggins, who is doing a good job making improvements to the article while it is currently undergoing a featured article review. dying (talk) 12:59, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
- Hi, I've addressed your first three bullet points and edited the blurb accordingly. The distance travelled by the James Caird from Elephant Island to South Georgia seems to me to be rather arbitrary, as Shackleton's party would not have been travelling in a straight line and they wouldn't have been recording it en route. It would have to be a guesstimate and, if the straight-line distance is 713 nmi, their journey could easily have been closer to 800 nautical miles. Unless a definitive calculation can be sourced, it's probably safer to phrase it as an estimate, e.g. a stormy ocean voyage of more than 700 nautical miles (just to give the reader an idea of the great distance travelled). The map in the article here shows the rough route taken between the islands, but I'm guessing that's also "made up" by a Commons user. Regards, Rodney Baggins (talk) 17:07, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
- Nimrod set sail from England on 11 August 1907 and stopped off at NZ on way to Antarctic. So, I guess that's why 1907 is noted as the expedition's start year, but that's not mentioned so I'll clarify at start of Nimrod section. Thanks for spotting that. Rodney Baggins (talk) 17:14, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
- substituting "720 nautical miles" with "more than 700 nautical miles" sounds like a good idea. i've made the replacement in the blurb, and also adjusted the values in mi and km accordingly. thanks, Rodney Baggins! dying (talk) 23:59, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
"sad eyed lady of the lowlands" [edit]
.jpg)
i am admittedly having trouble figuring out why this blurb currently has no image. i think commons has a decent number of photos of dylan in its "Bob Dylan" category, and the featured article even uses one of him pictured in 1966, the year the song was recorded and released. i am assuming that this was a simple oversight because the infobox does not feature an image. if that is indeed the case, i thought i might suggest, at right, a crop of the aforementioned image, which may be more suitable for the main page.
in any case, i have added an additional sentence to the blurb, taken largely from the article lead, so that the blurb's length is proper regardless of whether or not the blurb runs with an image. note that, although the additional sentence refers to dylan's wife with the surname of her first husband, "Lownds", despite the fact that sara and bob were already married at the time the song was recorded, the corresponding sentence in the article lead originally used "Lownds" to refer to her, and i decided not to drop it because the "Lowlands" mentioned in the song's title may be a reference to "Lownds", as mentioned in the article body. dying (talk) 01:59, 1 February 2024 (UTC) [copyedited header. dying (talk) 05:59, 23 February 2024 (UTC)]
- Thanks dying, image added. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:12, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks, dying! I've added co-nominator Mick gold above. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:41, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
- thanks for catching that, BennyOnTheLoose. i feel like an idiot since i distinctly remember telling myself to not forget to ping both fac nominators for this article. alas. sorry about that, Mick gold.Gog, although i type up my headers based on the usernames in the fac nominations, i sometimes use your scheduling chart above as a sanity check. i can't recall if i checked the chart for this blurb, but it seems like we both made the same mistake this time. as you seem to generally correct errors in the chart after the blurbs have been scheduled, i thought i might mention it. dying (talk) 05:59, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
the legend of zelda: oracle of seasons and oracle of ages [edit]
i'm surprised that i only just realized that i don't know whether or not "The Legend of Zelda series" is formatted properly, or whether it should be rendered as "the Legend of Zelda series", or perhaps even "the The Legend of Zelda series". previously, i would have assumed that "the Legend of Zelda series" was correct, with the "the" modifying "series" and "Legend of Zelda" being used as a shortened form of "The Legend of Zelda" in the same way that it is shortened in "original Legend of Zelda" later in the blurb. (in fact, i recently left a note explaining a similar situation for the blurb scheduled immediately before this one.)
however, the article capitalizes the 'T' in the link "Gameplay of The Legend of Zelda series" found in one of the section hatnotes, and also, the "The Legend of Zelda" article is inconsistent, using both "The Legend of Zelda series" and "the Legend of Zelda series", so it seems like there may be an issue here. is there a specific style that should be used in this case? i don't have a personal preference, and had left the "The" in the link text to avoid changing anything that might be controversial.
also, i admittedly don't have enough experience to determine (1) whether "Osaka" in the caption should be linked or not, and (2) whether it should be followed by ", Japan" or not. the featured article doesn't mention the city at all. (both images featured in the article are copyrighted, so the image chosen for the blurb was not one that was used in the article.) i don't have a personal preference regarding either issue, but thought i might bring them up in case it matters.
by the way, i am just noting here that i could not find an appropriate source cited in the article for the nintendo switch release date. i found some other sources that confirmed the date, though, so i am not worried about whether the date in the blurb is inaccurate. dying (talk) 00:59, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
- Nice one. "The" is part of the title and so should be upper case and in italics. MOS:SERIESTITLE confirms that series isn't and shouldn't. So the usage in the article and the blurb is correct. (As for usage in other articles, life is too short.) I have added "Japan" to the caption, but not linked anything. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:24, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
john spencer [edit]
i just wanted to note that, although blurbs without images are generally given some leeway over the standard 1025-character limit, this one appears to be currently 1203 characters long, and i am having trouble trying to condense it without removing anything substantial. could one of you please help me out? dying (talk) 23:59, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, I will have a look. The bit about him being first winner at Crucible can be taken out, I only added it in recently but didn't realise there was a word count limit. Rodney Baggins (talk) 10:05, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Dying: I've managed to reduce the blurb by around 180 characters by removing some details re. who he beat in worlds + scorelines, etc. I decided to keep in 1st winner at Crucible as I'd say that's pretty important. I think it's OK to abbreviate WPBSA given that the full name appears when you hover over it, and there's a link there of course. @BennyOnTheLoose: Are you happy with all this? Thanks, Rodney Baggins (talk) 18:13, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, thanks, Rodney Baggins. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:40, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
- BennyOnTheLoose and Rodney Baggins, thanks for condensing this blurb. i ended up restoring the full name of the wpbsa because i think the blurb is now short enough to accommodate it, and because i believe using only the acronym violates mos:acro1stuse. (also, i think mobile users are unable to hover over a link.) feel free to revert me if using the acronym is preferred. i had two further questions about this blurb.
- the 1971 world snooker championship was actually held in 1970, so i am worried that using the link text "in 1971" may be inaccurate. would simply replacing "in 1971" with "in 1970" (while keeping the link targeted to the "1971 World Snooker Championship" article) be an improvement? i was also playing with the idea of referring to the tournament as "the 1971 WSC", though i think implementing this possibility properly would be much more involved.
- dying; I wonder if something like "the 1971 edition" is workable and accurate enough? Although earlier sources often specified "December 1970", more recent sources tend to refer to it as the 1971 Championship. (e.g The Hamlyn Encyclopedia of Snooker mentions in the text that it was held later in the year of the 1970 championship, but still lists "World Professional Snooker Champion 1969, 1971, 1977". The BBC obituary has "won the world title in 1969, 1971 and 1977". The Times and The Guardian obituaries aren't very specific, but The Daily Telegraph had "again in 1971". Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 00:39, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
- the fact that the "2018 Seniors Masters" article was linked suggests to me that the trophy was named after spencer for only one year. is this true? other sources appear to suggest that the name would be used for all seniors masters tournaments, though it is difficult for me to confirm this as the tournament does not appear to have been held since 2019, and i have yet to find a source referencing the 2019 trophy as the "John Spencer Trophy". the featured article doesn't appear to link to the "2018 Seniors Masters" article, so if the trophy naming was of a more permanent nature, i think it may be more prudent to do the same to avoid any potential confusion, as there does not appear to be a wikipedia article covering the seniors masters tournament in general, rather than one specific instance of the tournament.
- There's a source for 2019 here that mentions "the John Spencer Trophy". The 2020 edition was due to be postponed to 2021. There was a tournament in 2021, but I could find very little info about it beyond the results. The 2022 edition was cancelled. Looks like there has been nothing since (I looked at this page and filtered for "Masters".) Based on 2018 and 2019, and the lack of any other name found, I think it's fair to conclude that the trophy was named on an enduring basis. Many thanks. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 00:39, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
- BennyOnTheLoose, thanks for finding the source from 2019! i apparently missed it because the source refers to the tournament as the "Sheffield Masters", which makes me wonder if the tournament was renamed. (the later postponement notices suggest that it wasn't, though.)in any case, now that we've established that the naming was probably permanent (even if the tournament series may not have been), does it make sense for the blurb to only link to the 2018 edition of the tournament? i ask because the only reason why i thought the naming of the trophy may have been for only one year is because the blurb linked to one specific instance of the tournament. i would have assumed that the naming was permanent otherwise. dying (talk) 23:59, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
- dying: I think that World Seniors Tour is perhaps a better link, although it covers other event series too. I agree that linking to 2018 isn't really appropriate. Thanks! Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 00:04, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
- BennyOnTheLoose, thanks for finding the source from 2019! i apparently missed it because the source refers to the tournament as the "Sheffield Masters", which makes me wonder if the tournament was renamed. (the later postponement notices suggest that it wasn't, though.)in any case, now that we've established that the naming was probably permanent (even if the tournament series may not have been), does it make sense for the blurb to only link to the 2018 edition of the tournament? i ask because the only reason why i thought the naming of the trophy may have been for only one year is because the blurb linked to one specific instance of the tournament. i would have assumed that the naming was permanent otherwise. dying (talk) 23:59, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
- There's a source for 2019 here that mentions "the John Spencer Trophy". The 2020 edition was due to be postponed to 2021. There was a tournament in 2021, but I could find very little info about it beyond the results. The 2022 edition was cancelled. Looks like there has been nothing since (I looked at this page and filtered for "Masters".) Based on 2018 and 2019, and the lack of any other name found, I think it's fair to conclude that the trophy was named on an enduring basis. Many thanks. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 00:39, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
- dying (talk) 02:59, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
- BennyOnTheLoose and Rodney Baggins, thanks for condensing this blurb. i ended up restoring the full name of the wpbsa because i think the blurb is now short enough to accommodate it, and because i believe using only the acronym violates mos:acro1stuse. (also, i think mobile users are unable to hover over a link.) feel free to revert me if using the acronym is preferred. i had two further questions about this blurb.
- Yes, thanks, Rodney Baggins. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:40, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Dying: I've managed to reduce the blurb by around 180 characters by removing some details re. who he beat in worlds + scorelines, etc. I decided to keep in 1st winner at Crucible as I'd say that's pretty important. I think it's OK to abbreviate WPBSA given that the full name appears when you hover over it, and there's a link there of course. @BennyOnTheLoose: Are you happy with all this? Thanks, Rodney Baggins (talk) 18:13, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, I will have a look. The bit about him being first winner at Crucible can be taken out, I only added it in recently but didn't realise there was a word count limit. Rodney Baggins (talk) 10:05, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
- Hi dying, are you content with the current state of the blurb? Gog the Mild (talk) 13:02, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
teloschistaceae [edit]
i had three questions about this blurb.
- i had trouble figuring out why the subtropical zones are explicitly mentioned in the blurb. my current understanding is that the subtropical zones are part of the temperate zones, so only the latter needs to be mentioned in the blurb, though i don't know if there are conflicting definitions of what constitutes the temperate zones. (i know that "middle latitudes" appears to have at least two conflicting definitions on wikipedia, here and here.) would it be appropriate to remove the "subtropical and"?
- i was unable to find any support in the article body for the statement about the 2013 revision. did i miss it? the abstract for the revision covers the points mentioned in the blurb, so i'm not too worried about that sentence being incorrect.
- i am not sure why south america and china are mentioned as regions where molecular phylogenetics is making good headway in our understanding of teloschistaceae. the article seems to assert that not much is known about the family in those regions, compared to our knowledge of the family elsewhere, which is almost the opposite of what the blurb is stating. were two unrelated sentences in the article lead merged accidentally?
dying (talk) 01:59, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
- I have changed the blurb to reflect the issues in points 1 and 3 above, and trimmed it to get under the character count. Esculenta, perhaps you could run an eye over it? Gog the Mild (talk) 13:24, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
quarter sovereign [edit]
i had two questions about this blurb.
- would it be appropriate to replace "five pound gold coin" with "quintuple sovereign"? i am an idiot and repeatedly misinterpreted "five pound gold coin" as a gold coin weighing five pounds. i also thought about using the phrase "a gold coin worth five pounds", but ultimately felt that it was a bit clumsy, while "quintuple sovereign" nicely parallels "half sovereign". note that this would just be a change to the link text; the link target would remain the same.
- since the reigning monarch is currently charles iii, would mentioning him before elizabeth ii be more appropriate? to me, i found it a bit jarring to first read "the reigning monarch, Elizabeth II", only to then see it followed by "or since 2022, Charles III", as if the latter was an afterthought. alternatively, it seems like "the reigning monarch" might be unnecessary detail that could easily be removed, since the blurb already mentions that the change occurred in 2022. below are two possible rewordings.
| original: | depicting on the obverse the reigning monarch, Elizabeth II, or since 2022, Charles III. |
| alt1: | depicting on the obverse the reigning monarch, Charles III, or until 2022, Elizabeth II. |
| alt2: | depicting Elizabeth II on the obverse, or since 2022, Charles III. |
dying (talk) 14:59, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
- See ref 17 for the reason that I am reluctant to use the term "quintuple sovereign" which is very very much a recent and invented usage. We live in a world where the word for the currency of the United Kingdom is also a unit of weight and the reader knows that. However, if you think there might be an issue, the Royal Mint uses "five-sovereign piece".
- Regarding the monarchs, my thought was to be chronological. I guess I prefer the original, or failing that Alt2. Wehwalt (talk) 17:17, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
- I nearly always prefer things chronologically, but agree that the current wording jars, so I have swapped in alt 2. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:12, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
- thanks for pointing out that source, Wehwalt, as i had been wondering if there was a reluctance to use the term. (also, i thought the joke the source used in the discussion of the term was surprisingly good.) i had brought up this point because, for some reason, i had been tripping up on this wording for weeks, even when i knew what was meant by the phrase. i finally realized recently that, apparently, the phrase "five pound gold" will make me think of five pounds of gold first; the same issue doesn't come up with "five pound coin". i assume this is just something wrong with me, so i think the current wording is fine. thanks for the explanation! dying (talk) 23:59, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
- I nearly always prefer things chronologically, but agree that the current wording jars, so I have swapped in alt 2. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:12, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
donald hardman [edit]
i had two questions about this blurb.
- does the cited high fliers source state that hardman accrued nine victories by the end of world war i? the cited dolphin and snipe aces of world war 1 source mentions that "Hardman claimed nine German aircraft shot down before the war ended" [emphasis added]. i ask because the australian dictionary of biography reports that "[h]e finished the war with seven confirmed victories". (by the way, i was unable to find anything in the article body stating that hardman flew in france during world war i. it seems likely that he did, since he appears to have been with no. 19 squadron when, according to this source, the squadron took part in the battle of amiens in france, but the only relevant location that i found mentioned explicitly in the article body was mons, in belgium.)
- the word "knighted" in the blurb currently links to the "Order of the Bath" article, which, to me, seems like a violation of mos:egg, as i would never have guessed, from the link text alone, that this article was targeted. is there a good way to resolve this? i had considered explicitly stating the class to which hardman belonged, but "Knight Commander of the Order of the Bath" is fairly lengthy, and i didn't want to shorten the rest of the blurb unilaterally if there was a better solution. another possibility is to simply remove the link, as i assume that readers who are fairly familiar with the concept of a knight would skip the link, and those that aren't may remain confused by it, as the targeted article doesn't really explain what a knighthood is, and the link may end up inadvertently suggesting that companions of the order are also considered knights.
- Lead and article use "Knight Commander of the Order of the Bath" explicitly, the blurb presumably uses "knighted" to save space. I think the simplest thing is to link "knighted" to Knight Commander of the Order of the Bath. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:06, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
dying (talk) 19:59, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
- Afternoon Ian, just checking that you've seen this. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:12, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
- Tks Gog -- I didn't nominate this for TFA as the novelty value has gone down after god-knows-how-many of "my" articles have been there, while the irritation level of fixing non-improvements has correspondingly gone up. Of course when I get "drafted" I do my bit for king and country, but at my own pace... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:02, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
dookie[edit]
i had three questions about this blurb.
- i couldn't find any mention of the album being recorded in "late summer 1993" in the article body. did i miss it? other sources seem to be telling me that it was recorded in september and october, which sounds more like autumn to me.
- the blurb and article body both include a hyphen in "sell-out", while the article lead uses "sellout". normally, the style of the blurb matches that of the article lead, but since the article itself is inconsistent, i hesitated to drop the hyphen in the blurb unilaterally. is there a preference for using one spelling or the other?
- the choice of image strikes me as potentially problematic because (1) to explain its relevance to the featured subject, a long caption is needed; (2) the fact that it is taller than it is wide means that each line of the caption will be short, as {{main page image/TFA}} resizes images to be about 19600 pixels large; and (3) without additional information, readers may be mislead into believing that the concert pictured is the one mentioned in the caption.regarding the first point, i believe long captions are generally discouraged, and don't recall offhand any caption in the past two years spilling over four lines. on the second point, i think the image could be cropped, as the majority of the crowd, as well as the foliage at the top, isn't really necessary for the blurb. to resolve the third point, i had considered adding "pictured in 2009", and possibly also noting that the concert in question took place in 1994. with a cropped image, these details can be added without having the caption spill beyond four lines, as seen in the mock-up at right.
.jpg)
- another way to resolve these issues is to simply choose a different picture. the current one seems to only have a tenuous connection with the subject, and personally, i don't think it really helps the reader understand the blurb. the previous blurb for this article ran with a picture of armstrong, who is explicitly mentioned in the new blurb, and there are plenty of other pictures of him to choose from at commons. i've selected (two versions of) one such example at right. note, of course, that if we end up using a picture of armstrong, a "(pictured)" should be inserted in the blurb prose, after armstrong's name. i would recommend replacing "frontman Billie Joe Armstrong's personal experiences" with "the personal experiences of frontman Billie Joe Armstrong (pictured)", to avoid placing the parenthetical after a possessive.do any of these options seem like an improvement over the current image and caption?
by the way, although the blurb now states that dookie won a grammy for "Best Alternative Music Album", i feel like i should note that, technically, the award appears to have been named "Best Alternative Music Performance" at the time, as grammy.com reports here. (grammy.com surprisingly also refers to it as the award for "Best Alternative Rock Performance" [emphasis added] here, but not many other sources do the same.) in addition, since 2023, grammy awards have been presented for a new category, "Best Alternative Music Performance", which understandably may cause some confusion. dying (talk) 23:59, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
- First point: it was partially recorded during the summer months technically (early September is what was implied, but I should clarify that better in the body), and finished in the autumn. This source would imply otherwise, though: WXRK
- Second point: the blurb originally used no hyphen, but it was changed. I can change the article to match.
- Third point: I was unsure which image to include for an album this old. I thought it had to be an image inside the article, but I'll happily use the left shot of Billie Joe. dannymusiceditor oops 00:35, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
- I thought that a blurb image needed to be in the article too, but I am probably confusing that with DYK. @WP:TFA coordinators to check this. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:54, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
- Sometimes the only relevant image in the article is fair-use, or it's not clear what it's an image of (at the small size needed on the Main Page, at least), or it's too tangential. - Dank (push to talk) 14:11, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
- If such cases is it ok to use an image not in the article as the blurb image? Gog the Mild (talk) 14:26, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
- Magic 8 Ball says: signs point to yes. - Dank (push to talk) 14:33, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
- I agree. Sometimes none of the article's images "works", or the licensing is no good and you go hunting. Wehwalt (talk) 01:54, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
- So, Xihix and DannyMusicEditor, would you have any problems with incorporating that fine head shot of Mr Armstrong in the article, so we can use it in the blurb? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:23, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
- I'd be happy to run the first shot of Billie. Funny, I didn't pick up the ping on this. dannymusiceditor oops 18:34, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
- I cut this real fine, but I think I've done what I can to address every point now. I changed the season to "mid-1993", as according to the sources I used, they don't give a specific timeframe for when it was recorded, and the date I had there originally was directly imported as a translation from the frwiki FA in hopes I would get something out of it, but it appears to me they just took a guess. This is the best my sources can offer after thoroughly consulting them: it happened around the time they did the support shows for Bad Religion, which according to Ben Myers has this happening in the summer of 1993. I know MOS:SEASON generally dislikes this, so I found it reasonable to mark this as mid-1993; if a note is required in the text to explain this I would be happy to do so. dannymusiceditor oops 18:21, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
- I'd be happy to run the first shot of Billie. Funny, I didn't pick up the ping on this. dannymusiceditor oops 18:34, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
- So, Xihix and DannyMusicEditor, would you have any problems with incorporating that fine head shot of Mr Armstrong in the article, so we can use it in the blurb? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:23, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
- I agree. Sometimes none of the article's images "works", or the licensing is no good and you go hunting. Wehwalt (talk) 01:54, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
- Magic 8 Ball says: signs point to yes. - Dank (push to talk) 14:33, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
- If such cases is it ok to use an image not in the article as the blurb image? Gog the Mild (talk) 14:26, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
- Sometimes the only relevant image in the article is fair-use, or it's not clear what it's an image of (at the small size needed on the Main Page, at least), or it's too tangential. - Dank (push to talk) 14:11, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
- I thought that a blurb image needed to be in the article too, but I am probably confusing that with DYK. @WP:TFA coordinators to check this. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:54, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
DannyMusicEditor, i have updated the blurb with "mid-1993" to reflect your change to the lead. thanks for your research and responsive edits to the article!
Gog, i have left the image and caption alone because i am not sure if you wish to restrict the selection of images for a blurb to only those used in the corresponding article. note that this blurb will fall under cascading protection at the end of the day. also, this upcoming blurb currently uses an image that is not found in the article and i do not know if it needs to be changed. dying (talk) 07:59, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
"open arms" [edit]
i am having trouble trying to understand what is meant by "persistent feelings of self-attachment" in the blurb. "self-attachment" doesn't actually appear in the article; the lead refers to "her persistent feelings of attachment to him", and the body mentions "the narrator's continued attachment to a relationship". i suppose there could be a psychological theory equating a partner or a relationship with the self, but the article gives no hint that this is what was meant. is it possible that the "self-" of "self-esteem", which appears earlier in the blurb, was inadvertently duplicated in front of "attachment"? to me, i think the blurb would make more sense if "self-attachment" was replaced with either "attachment to him" (following the lead) or "attachment to the relationship" (following the body). dying (talk) 23:59, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
- Elias, your edit to the blurb looks good. thanks for addressing the issue. dying (talk) 05:59, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
nestor makhno[edit]
i noticed that (1) the "Ukrainian War of Independence" article, targeted by the link "Ukrainian Civil War" in the blurb, actually doesn't use the phrase "Ukrainian Civil War" anywhere; (2) the phrase "Ukrainian Civil War" is, surprisingly, only used once in the featured article, in the lead; and (3) wikipedia has a disambiguation page at "Ukrainian Civil War", suggesting that the term may be ambiguous.
normally, i would have suggested replacing the link text "Ukrainian Civil War" in the blurb with "Ukrainian War of Independence", to reflect the name currently used in the title of wikipedia's article on the conflict, and avoid confusion that may arise if a lesser-known name for the conflict is used. in fact, the featured article's lead sentence refers to it as the "Ukrainian War of Independence".
however, i admittedly don't know enough about how the conflict is viewed by modern parties to know if changing the link text (or leaving it alone) would be considered a violation of wp:npov, so i am just mentioning this point here in case it is something that should be addressed. note that both the phrase "Ukrainian Civil War" and the phrase "Ukrainian War of Independence" can be interpreted as referring to the current russo-ukrainian war, and i don't know if that changes anything.
by the way, i dropped the space from "home town" that was originally in the blurb, as the article lead and body generally use "hometown" (with one apparently unexplained exception). i was unable to determine why a space was added in the blurb, so am just mentioning this here in case it was deliberate. feel free to revert if there are any objections. dying (talk) 23:59, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
- one more thing: i was recently looking more closely at the "Russian Revolution" article, and realized that it covered the period until 1923. (i think i had erroneously assumed that it covered only the february revolution and the october revolution.) as the blurb currently uses the phrase "Following the 1917 Revolution" while linking to the "Russian Revolution" article, i feel that it may confusingly suggest that makhno only returned to his hometown and led an anarchist resistance no earlier than 1923.to avoid this, would it make sense to replace the phrase "Following the 1917 Revolution" with something like "In 1917, during the Russian Revolution", or perhaps either "Following the February Revolution of 1917" or "Following the October Revolution of 1917"? (interestingly, it looks like makhno returned to his hometown and led an anarchist resistance shortly after both revolutions.) apologies for not having brought this issue up in my initial comment. dying (talk) 10:59, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
benty grange hanging bowl[edit]
i don't know if it's just me, my screen, or both, but the image featured is currently rather hard on my eyes, as the two main colors used do not offer much contrast. interestingly, the image originally uploaded doesn't have this issue, but i understand that the colors were changed to more closely resemble the actual colors of the escutcheons. normally, i may not have brought this up, but i recently learned here that contrast is a concern when selecting images for tfa blurbs, so i thought i might mention the potential issue.
to be clear, i don't think the image needs to be replaced by an entirely different one, as i think the image has a clear connection with the prose, but i thought i might suggest increasing the contrast between the two colors somewhat, in case something like this was easily doable, and the result would not be considered an unfaithful representation of the original design. dying (talk) 23:59, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
"last gasp" [edit]
i had three questions about this blurb.
- the blurb doesn't seem to explicitly mention anything about when the episode aired. was this deliberate?
- should "Sport Relief" be in italics? the target article appears to consistently use italics, even if the noun phrase in which it appears is not a television show, e.g., "Sport Relief Mile". the featured article consistently does not use italics.
_October_2013.jpg)
- i've previously raised here the question about whether the image of pemberton currently used in the blurb has been released under an appropriate license. to summarize, i don't think the uploader had the legal right to release the photo under cc by-sa 4.0, and may have uploaded it following a tweet from pemberton, even though i have doubts that pemberton was the copyright owner of the photo and the tweet does not appear to have been worded in such a way that it would constitute a release compatible with cc by-sa 4.0. would it be more prudent to use an image more clearly released under a suitable license?we don't appear to have a lack of appropriate images for this blurb. the article features two, at right, which went through the approval process at fac. the blurb was actually nominated at tfa/r with the image of greig. between those two, though, i'd prefer to use the image of hutchinson simply because it would be easier to reword the blurb to use "(pictured)" and not have to worry about whether the closing parenthesis should be in italics. (we could replace " (Lucy Hutchinson)," with ", played by Lucy Hutchinson (pictured),", while doing something similar for greig would end up presenting her name unenclosed by parentheses in the middle of a string of other names enclosed by parentheses.)
courtesy pinging the participants of this discussion at wp:errors: Geni, Schwede66, Bagumba, Amakuru, Diannaa, and Davest3r08. i thought i might seek additional advice from you all, on the assumption that you are all interested in copyright issues with tfa blurbs. does the issue mentioned above disqualify the photo of pemberton from appearing on the main page? also, in the future, would you be interested in possibly providing input if i have a question about copyright regarding an image scheduled to appear in a tfa blurb? to be clear, there's no pressure in providing a response to the issue above, or to any other copyright issues i might ping you for if you're interested in helping out in the future. dying (talk) 22:59, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
- I've swapped the image; it's better to be on the safe side. A minor rewording (somewhat different from what is suggested above) went with that. Feel free to tweak it as you see fit. Schwede66 23:30, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
- It was not deliberate to exclude the date that the episode aired, but probably got cut during one of the many times I tried to trim the blurb to 1025 characters. I'm fine with stating the air date in the blurb.
- I am weary of using a photo of a child on the Main Page due to privacy concerns, but I'll let others decide if that is appropriate. Z1720 (talk) 03:11, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- I've requested permission at Commons for File:Steve Pemberton after winning a BAFTA for Inside No. 9 in 2019.jpg. Some concern due to lack of metadata.—Bagumba (talk) 08:36, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
Our article on Comic Relief doesn't italicise. I'm not sure I fully understand why we would italicise 'Sport Relief' unless we're thinking of it solely as a TV programme, per WP:ITALICS. If the picture of Pemberton is no good, so be it. I slightly prefer a photo of Grieg rather than Hutchinson, simply because Grieg is a well-known actress and Hutchinson is not. I agree that the date should be included in the blurb. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:14, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- According to MOS:ITALICTITLE, "Sport Relief" should not be in italics. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:20, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
freedom [edit]
i had three questions about this blurb.
- i am not sure if it is just me, but i had felt that the use of the word "curated" was a bit unusual, as i tend to associate the word with the act of creating or managing a collection of items that does not include one's own works. (for example, i assume people expect museum curators to not have any significant conflicts of interest when choosing what items to purchase or put on display.) in freedom, not only is velasquez the main performer, but she also sings some of her own songs. would replacing "curated" with something like "organized" or "arranged" be an improvement?
- although the recording location was in quezon city, part of metro manila, the blurb and article both assert that it was recorded in manila, while linking to the "Metro Manila" article. would it be more appropriate to replace the link "Manila" with either "Metro Manila" or "Quezon City", or is this sort of approximation acceptable?
- i had thought that the phrase "geometric structures of birds" was really quaint, so i looked up the cited sources to see how the structures were originally described therein. the ktx source appears to be just a page where tickets for the concert were sold, so i am not sure if another source had been intended to be cited. the abs-cbn source does not appear to mention the structures in the text, but it includes an image showing the structures. to me, the structures look like origami cranes, although i admittedly cannot tell if the props are actually made of paper. would replacing "geometric structures of birds" with "props resembling origami cranes" (with or without the link) make the description more clear?
dying (talk) 23:59, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Dying: Thanks for reviewing the blurb, I have made all changes as suggested. Pseud 14 (talk) 00:19, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
Snowy plover [edit]
@WP:TFA coordinators : the table incorrectly lists me as the nominator of Snowy plover, which was nommed by Jens Lallensack. I'm not sure whether any changes, if any, need to be made here—just thought I should bring it to your attention. – Epicgenius (talk) 00:06, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks Epicgenius. I was switched some articles around and that got detached, but it seems that the correct editor got the appropriate pings. Now corrected. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:49, 22 January 2024 (UTC)