Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/November 11, 2019
I would suggest that it does not read well to state that "it is a Stone of Remembrance flanked by twin obelisks draped with painted stone flags" and in the very next sentence that it uses the three features: "a pair of obelisks, the Stone of Remembrance ..., and painted stone flags on the obelisks". Without this repetition, it may be possible to include other details that may be of interest (the inscription, delay in installation, dimensions) Kevin McE (talk) 16:03, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
- I'm happy to leave it up to you whether we ping the FAC supporters to work on this one or leave it until 48 hours before Main Page day, and handle it at WP:ERRORS. I'm not comfortable making an edit on this one, and HJ Mitchell has only one edit since February, so I don't want to ask him to do it either. - Dank (push to talk) 02:49, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
- I find it hard to know what is expected here. I was turned upon for raising errors at ERRORS rather than doing so earlier, and for raising stylistic issues at ERRORS; but now it is proposed that something that is stylistic/efficient use of the 950 characters, and not an error as such, it is proposed to leave it to ERRORS. Colour me confused.
- I know of, but don't really understand, your reluctance to involve yourself in changes to blurbs you have composed. You were the person who made the edit that has left this repetition: did you do so because you like the effect it gave, or was it something you didn't really avert to, or something you included reluctantly because you couldn't see a way around it. Kevin McE (talk) 14:07, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
- It does look redundant; you could probably strike everything from the date to "standing" (as quoted above) and move the linked term down. I would also note Lutyens' → Lutyens's (MOS:POSS). – Reidgreg (talk) 14:56, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks all. What I meant was that there were some hard issues here and I thought I'd need help ... but looking at it again, I think this is doable. How does it look now? - Dank (push to talk) 14:57, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
- That's fine as far as I can see. Maybe try to avoid "it features ... this feature" in successive sentences, but that is obviously not an error. Kevin McE (talk) 17:38, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
- Done. - Dank (push to talk) 18:18, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
- That's fine as far as I can see. Maybe try to avoid "it features ... this feature" in successive sentences, but that is obviously not an error. Kevin McE (talk) 17:38, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks all. What I meant was that there were some hard issues here and I thought I'd need help ... but looking at it again, I think this is doable. How does it look now? - Dank (push to talk) 14:57, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
- It does look redundant; you could probably strike everything from the date to "standing" (as quoted above) and move the linked term down. I would also note Lutyens' → Lutyens's (MOS:POSS). – Reidgreg (talk) 14:56, 28 October 2019 (UTC)