Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/April 2024

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

April is shaping up like this:

Date Article FAC nominator Promoted FTopic? Rerun? Request? Blurb?
1 Order of Brothelyngham Serial Number 54129 2023 TFAP DanGreen tickY
2 Morgan Bulkeley Wehwalt 2024 GaryGreen tickY
3 Daytona USA Red Phoenix 2023 DanGreen tickY
4 Marshfield station John M Wolfson 2023 TFAR (briefly) TFAR
5 Hrabri-class submarine Peacemaker67 2022 Hrabri-class
submarines		 TFAR TFAR
6 Appalachian Spring MyCatIsAChonk 2023 MyCatIsAChonkGreen tickY
7 The boy Jones SchroCat 2024 SchroCatGreen tickY
8 Bob Mann (American football) Gonzo fan2007
Cbl62		 2020 TFAP/Dan Green tickY
9 Mercury Seven Hawkeye7 2019 TFAP/Dan DanGreen tickY
10 Telopea speciosissima Casliber
Melburnian		 2010 2011 Green tickY
11 Kurt Vonnegut Ceradon
Wehwalt		 2015 Green tickY
12 Fallout (video game) Lazman321 2022 TFAR TFAR
13 1999 Sydney hailstorm Daniel 2007 2008 TFAR (briefly) TFAR
14 Walt Whitman's lectures on Abraham Lincoln Eddie891 2023 Walt Whitman and Abraham Lincoln TFAP/Dan DanGreen tickY
15 One of the Boys (1989 TV series) Heartfox 2021 TFAR TFAR
16 William T. Stearn Michael Goodyear 2017 2018 DanGreen tickY
17 Rumours (album) Rafablu88 2010 DanGreen tickY
18 Katana Zero TheJoebro64 2022 TFAR TFAR
19 Guallatiri Jo-Jo Eumerus 2024 DanGreen tickY
20 Nicoll Highway collapse ZKang123 2024 Green tickY
21 1984 World Snooker Championship Lee Vilenski
BennyOnTheLoose		 2020 TFAP/Dan Dan/JohnGreen tickY
22 Kathleen Ferrier Brianboulton 2011 2012 TFAP TFAR/DanGreen tickY
23 Stanley Price Weir Peacemaker67 2015 2016 TFAP Green tickY
24 Death of Blair Peach SchroCat 2019 TFAP DanGreen tickY
25 Vance Drummond Ian Rose 2019 TFAP DanGreen tickY
26 Into Temptation (film) Hunter Kahn 2011 TFAR TFAR
27 After the Deluge (painting) Iridescent 2016 Dan/JohnGreen tickY
28 Cross Road Blues Ojorojo 2023 Dan/JohnGreen tickY
29 Battle of Grand Gulf Hog Farm 2023 TFAP Green tickY
30 Inaccessible Island rail Sabine's Sunbird 2017 DanGreen tickY

Notes[edit]

  • Thinking about Morgan Bulkeley. Wehwalt, did you have a specific date you wanted to run him? I'm looking for a Republican politician for April to balance out John Glenn (that article is on TFAP for July). - Dank (push to talk) 03:06, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No specific date. Wehwalt (talk) 03:12, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I did a blurb and put it in the usual spot. If you can arrange it, the first four days of April would be good because I'm going on one of my cruises on April 5 and although the internet is usually good, you never know. Wehwalt (talk) 04:04, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed. Thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 04:07, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Wehwalt, one more thing. You were a nominator for Kurt Vonnegut. He keeps getting passed over for his birthday because it's on Veteran's (Armistice) Day. He's been appearing at OTD on his death date, April 11. Does it make sense to run him on April 11, or would you rather we wait for you to get back from your cruise? - Dank (push to talk) 05:30, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, if you want to run it on the 11th, that's fine. Wehwalt (talk) 05:50, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • If anyone feels like working on Mary Wollstonecraft, she's got a multiple-of-5-year anniversary coming up, but concerns have been expressed on the talk page. - Dank (push to talk) 03:02, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Everyone: even though I've got most all of the calendar above filled in, it's not time yet to close nominations. Feel free to nominate stuff at WP:TFAR or even WP:TFAP for any day you like ... if it's not possible to shift things around on the calendar for that day, I'll let you know and we'll try to find another day for it. - Dank (push to talk) 23:12, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually ... there really isn't any wiggle-room left in the first 15 days, for various reasons. I'll go ahead and schedule those days soon-ish. Nominations are still welcome for the second half of the month. - Dank (push to talk) 03:40, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Scheduling for the month will be finished in a few minutes. - Dank (push to talk) 15:48, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

morgan bulkeley[edit]

i had two questions about this blurb.

  • when i first read this blurb, i thought that the doors that were locked were those of the main entrance to the capitol, which seemed strange to me. the article body, however, states that "a padlock [was] put on the door of the executive offices at the state capitol". to more closely conform to the article body, would it be appropriate to replace "locked the doors" with "locked a door", and "had them opened" with "had it opened"?
    by the way, i dug a little deeper, and apparently, according to this hartford courant source, it wasn't the door of the executive offices that was locked, but simply a door "between the House chambers and the governor's suite". (this floor plan of the capitol may make the courant's description more clear.)
  • the last sentence of the blurb suggested to me that bulkeley did something controversial during his time as president of the national league, which may have been why he was involved in baseball only briefly. of course, the article body makes it clear that bulkeley himself "stated he would only serve [as league president] for one year", so his tenure was deliberately short. would it be appropriate to replace "because of his brief involvement in the game" in the blurb with something like "because he was involved in the game only briefly"? this way, the duration of the involvement is more clearly highlighted as the source of the controversy.

note that the suggested replacement under the second bullet point may cause the blurb to exceed the character limit, though if both suggested edits are implemented, the blurb will remain within the limit. dying (talk) 23:59, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed "of the State Capital" to "at the State Capital" which is of course literally true. I think it gets the reader the picture. For blurb purposes, we don't need to go into which door it was. I don't think the final sentence implies he did anything controversial. The reader is told early in the blurb that he was only president during 1876, which is part of the brief tenure. I think the sentence is good as it stands.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:46, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've tweaked the blurb and article slightly re the door.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:13, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
oh, Wehwalt, sorry for not making it more clear before, but the details about the door was just for your information, in case you weren't already aware. the article describes the incident as if staub locked the only door to the executive offices, so i was surprised to learn that that was not the case. i agree that there is no need to mention this in the blurb.
anyway, your edits look good. thanks, Wehwalt. dying (talk) 03:59, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

playstation[edit]

i had five questions about this blurb.

  • i can't seem to find a reliable source stating that 3061 games were released for the console. in fact, the targeted "List of PlayStation games (A–L)" article states that there are 4105 games in wikipedia's list of games for the console (which spans two articles). the article body had actually stated that 7918 games were released, before this number was removed from the article about a day ago, apparently because that value counted releases of a game in different regions as different games. since there appears to be disagreement on exactly how many games were released for the console, would it be better to avoid giving an exact number? for example, "A total of 3,061 PlayStation games were released" could be replaced with "Thousands of PlayStation games were released".
  • i am also unsure about the accuracy of the value of "967 million" in the blurb. this doesn't seem to be supported by the article body, which mentions the value of "962 million" instead. note that the cited source is actually from sony itself, and the number is based on sales up to and including the first quarter of 2007. would rewording the statement to use an approximation be more prudent here as well? note that my suggestion below deliberately splits one sentence into two, to avoid having readers accidentally conflate the number of consoles sold with the number of games sold.
The PlayStation became the first computer entertainment platform to ship over 100 million units, with eventual sales of 967 million games.
→   The PlayStation became the first computer entertainment platform to ship over 100 million units. Alongside, nearly a billion games were eventually sold.
  • the sentence in the blurb with the list of games actually contains a list of links to the associated series and franchises, rather than links to the games themselves. (the article lead presents the list as a list of franchises instead, so it does not have the same problem.) could this issue be resolved by adding "games from franchises such as" before "Gran Turismo"? alternatively, each of the problematic links could be replaced with a game from the associated series, although this may cause the blurb to exceed the character limit.
  • is there a reason the games are listed in that particular order? if there is, i was unable to figure it out. if there isn't, i would recommend sorting them alphabetically.
  • is there a reason why wipeout is included in this list? it looks like none of the games in the wipeout series appears in the "List of best-selling PlayStation video games" article, which includes 123 games, while all the others have at least one entry in the top 20. skimming through that list, i would have thought that dragon warrior and tony hawk's both would easily have been more worthy of inclusion.

dying (talk) 03:59, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is as good a time as any to jump in and explain why I don't usually respond quickly to questions on this page (although I will sometimes fix typos and things like typos). I've got at least four reasons for this: 1. The TFA coords have all been strongly encouraging Main Page regulars to look at this page and to deal with anything that isn't an outright "error" here rather than at WP:ERRORS. I think there's a risk of undercutting that message if I jump in and respond without giving other folks a chance to voice their opinions and make edits. 2. Struggling with text can be a useful exercise, for anyone, and the struggle is part of the process. 3. I've never known what being "neutral" means in the context of TFA, but I know that it's something I'm supposed to aim for, especially when there's a chance that the discussion will become contentious, and 4. Outside of my own areas of editing, I'm usually bad at figuring out what's supported by the sources. - Dank (push to talk) 15:04, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dank: wait, I didn't nominate this and did not know it was being slotted soon, let alone April. This needs to be pulled and instead postponed for the 3rd December this year, which is the console's 30th anniversary. Any issues with sales figures could easily be rectified until then. ♦ JAGUAR  18:11, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to oblige, if you're willing to pick a substitute article from WP:Featured articles that haven't been on the Main Page#Video gaming and write a rough draft of a blurb for it (or at least indicate what you think are the points that should be mentioned). - Dank (push to talk) 19:20, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If not, I'll ask over at WT:WPVG to see if we can get a substitute. - Dank (push to talk) 02:11, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Daytona USA has been substituted for April 3. The current blurb is 944 characters, and the nominator will probably add something to that. - Dank (push to talk) 04:02, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for letting me know, Dank. i've reposed a few of the questions on the talk page of the article, so that they can be addressed before the article comes up again at tfa. dying (talk) 03:59, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

daytona usa[edit]

i had two questions about this blurb.

  • the article seems to use the terms "arcade games" and "arcade video games" interchangeably, even though, strictly speaking, the latter is a proper subset of the former. daytona usa appears to be one of the highest-grossing arcade video games of all time, but was it really one of the highest-grossing arcade games of all time?
    i don't know if the latter is obviously true due to wp:bluesky, but i would have guessed that a number of pachinko games would have dominated the list. i admittedly haven't done extensive research on the subject, but skimming through a few sources, it seems like annual revenues for the arcade video game market worldwide during the 1990s hovered around 10 billion usd, while annual revenues for the pachinko market in japan during the 1990s was around 300 billion usd. (for comparison, the annual military budget for the u.s. during the 1990s was also about 300 billion usd.)
    i assume that this issue can be bypassed by simply replacing "highest-grossing arcade games" with "highest-grossing arcade video games", but i didn't want to do so unilaterally if daytona usa was actually one of the highest-grossing arcade games of all time.
  • to me, the last two sentences seem a bit repetitive, and i am not sure why the blurb ends with the comparison to arcade games (or arcade video games) with respect to revenue, rather than the more general comparison to video games. (the article lead ends with the latter.) would a substitution like the one below be an improvement?
It has been frequently named one of the best video games of all time. Daytona USA is one of the highest-grossing arcade games of all time.
→   Daytona USA is one of the highest-grossing arcade games ever, and has been frequently named one of the best video games of all time.
of course, "highest-grossing arcade games" here should be replaced with "highest-grossing arcade video games" if the suggestion in the first bullet point is to be implemented.
Yes, the last two sentences felt repetitive to me too. I don't have a preference on how to fix it. - Dank (push to talk) 13:31, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I went with your text; comments and edits are still welcome, of course. - Dank (push to talk) 13:58, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

also, Dank, i effectively reverted your addition of an "'s" after "Sega Model 2", which you explained was to conform with mos:seaofblue, because i think it is confusing to refer to the sega model 2's arcade system board when the model 2 itself is an arcade system board. of course, if you think my solution to the mos:seaofblue issue isn't any better, feel free to revert. dying (talk) 12:59, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. - Dank (push to talk) 13:31, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

marshfield station[edit]

i had three questions about this blurb.

  • the article body doesn't appear to state that metropolitan west side elevated railroad constructed the station. instead, it mentions that west side construction company was "responsible for constructing [the metropolitan's] lines", which were then "transferred to the Metropolitan [in] 1896". notably, the article also mentions that "[t]he backers and officers of the two companies were largely identical", so although it appears that the statement in the blurb is technically inaccurate, i don't know if it was deliberately so. is a rewording to more closely conform with the article body warranted?
  • regarding the statement about the junction being considered the most complex in the system, the phrase "widely regarded" seems to fall afoul of mos:weasel. the article itself doesn't seem to make such an assertion, only giving one source that described it as such. would it be better to replace "was widely regarded as" in the blurb with "has been described as"? the latter phrase is also used in the article body.
  • although the blurb states that the station was "subject to modifications beginning in the 1930s", i was unable to find anything in the article stating that the station was actually modified during the 1930s. it does mention that modifications had been planned since the 1930s, so perhaps the blurb is technically accurate since "subject" only means that something could happen. personally, though, i feel that the current wording strongly suggests that the modifications actually did happen starting in the 1930s, since the modifications clearly did happen eventually. could this issue be avoided by replacing "beginning in" with "planned since"? the latter phrase is also used in the article lead.

dying (talk) 03:59, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator hasn't edited since November. Anyone have a recommendation? - Dank (push to talk) 22:48, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dying, I'm fine with your proposals here, if no one else has input. - Dank (push to talk) 15:11, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
oh, i admittedly didn't provide a specific suggestion regarding the first bullet point because i wasn't sure what would be best. according to the article body, the metropolitan west side elevated railroad company took over operations about 17 months after service began, and entered receivership the following year, so if we still wish to mention the company in the blurb, the following is the best alternative i could come up with.

alt1: Operated by the Metropolitan West Side Elevated Railroad during its first few years,

note that this may be slightly misleading, as the company did not operate the station during the entirety of the first few years. interestingly, the "Metropolitan West Side Elevated Railroad" article is actually about the railway line itself, and not the company, so we can also easily reword the blurb to reference the railway line instead.

alt2: Originally part of the Metropolitan West Side Elevated Railroad,

if, however, the intention was to mention the construction of the station, then i think it would be best to simply replace "Metropolitan West Side Elevated Railroad" with the company that actually constructed the station.

alt3: Constructed by the West Side Construction Company,

i think any of these three options could work. dying (talk) 03:59, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You've pointed out problems with alt1 and alt3 so ... alt2? Make whichever edits you like and I'll take another look. - Dank (push to talk) 04:12, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
done. does it look like it still needs work? dying (talk) 23:59, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks great, thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 00:10, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

hrabri-class submarine[edit]

is there a reason why "generals in exile" is not hyphenated while "KM-in-exile" is? i am admittedly not that familiar with when "in exile" should be hyphenated, and the practice seems to vary on wikipedia, so i don't actually have a preference either way. i just thought i might ask because i couldn't figure out a reason for what appears to be an inconsistency in the blurb. dying (talk) 01:59, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't personally have a preference for either style, and I don't know which is better. - Dank (push to talk) 15:14, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
same here. if desired, i think we could avoid the issue altogether by replacing "Yugoslav generals in exile" with "exiled Yugoslav generals". dying (talk) 03:59, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

appalachian spring[edit]

i had three questions about this blurb.

  • i found it a bit strange that copland was described as an american, while graham was not. admittedly, as both of them were americans, the obvious solution, adding "American" before "choreographer", might seem a bit repetitive. another alternative would be to move the "American" from immediately before "composer" to immediately before "ballet" (and add an 'n' to the end of the preceding 'a'), which would then strongly suggest that both copland and graham were americans. does either of these alternatives appear to be an improvement, or am i overthinking things and the sentence is fine as is?
  • is there a reason why the blurb only states that "[t]he music was well-received at the 1944 premiere" [emphasis added], rather than the ballet as a whole? i thought that maybe it was because the second half of the sentence focused on the pulitzer prize for music, though personally, i think the sentence would have worked just as well had "music" been replaced with "ballet". as someone previously unfamiliar with this ballet before reading this blurb, i had initially thought that perhaps the other aspects of the ballet were not as well-received, though the article body clearly explains that this was not the case.
  • did copland actually earn the pulitzer prize after the 1945 u.s. tour? the article suggests to me that an additional performance night in new york was added shortly after the prize had been announced, though i am not positive about the timing, and i am only assuming that the performances in new york are considered to have been part of the u.s. tour that year.

dying (talk) 01:59, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’ll address these soon- out of town now and will likely have time tomorrow. Thanks for the comments MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 13:23, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dying, all fixed- thank you for the comments! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 08:40, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks MCIAC, looks good to me. - Dank (push to talk) 15:14, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
same here. thanks, MyCatIsAChonk. dying (talk) 03:59, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

the boy jones[edit]

i had three questions about this blurb.

  • the blurb's opening seems a bit convoluted since the text used for the bolded link is supposed to be the same as the article title. could the opening be structured like that in the article lead instead? interestingly, this would mean that the bolded link would appear after "Edward Jones" is mentioned, but i don't think that would violate any tfa rules.
The boy Jones (Edward Jones; 7 April 1824 – c. 1895) was
→   Edward Jones (7 April 1824 – c. 1895), also known as "the boy Jones", was
    • I see your point. SchroCat, I think either of these would work, do you have a preference? - Dank (push to talk) 13:59, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • the blurb introduces jones as a thief, even though his thievery does not appear to be the main reason for his notoriety; the article actually never uses the word "thief". would it be more appropriate to use the word "stalker", as the article lead does? i recognize that "stalker" may be a less familiar word to some, but the blurb currently makes no mention of the queen, so someone entirely unfamiliar with jones may be led to believe that he was simply a thief that happened to target buckingham palace a few times.
    • Although the blurb has to follow the article, it also has to be able to stand on its own. I don't advise using the word "stalker" in the blurb because there's nothing in the blurb that supports the notion that he was a stalker ... and I don't think that we can, or should, try to fix that. - Dank (push to talk) 13:59, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • I’m not happy with “thief”, although I accept your point in “stalker” too. Do we have to pigeon hole him at all? Something along the lines of “... Jones" became notorious for breaking into Buckingham Palace several times between 1838 and 1841”? That's where his notability lies, rather than him being a thief or stalker. - SchroCat (talk) 09:17, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • No objection, if you or Dying would like to change it. - Dank (push to talk) 13:48, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          • oh, Dank and SchroCat, those are both good points. also, i like how the opening sentence has been reworded. thanks for addressing this! dying (talk) 23:59, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • is there a reason why, in the blurb, article lead, and article body, the theory that jones died in 1896 is mentioned before the one positing that he died in 1893?

also, i changed "1893 or 1896" to "c. 1895" to more closely match the uncertainty expressed in the article. using "1893 or 1896" would assert that jones definitely died on one of those two years. the article lead actually uses "c. 1893 or 1896", but i figured that this complication wasn't necessary, as the last sentence of the blurb already explicitly mentions 1893 and 1896, so there is no need to go into detail about the possible dates at the start of the blurb. feel free to revert if there are any objections. dying (talk) 02:59, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • I'm definitely on board with "c. 1895"; I wanted to do that myself, but I aim for minimal changes. - Dank (push to talk) 13:59, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for your edit, SchroCat, looks good to me. I don't have a preference for the first sentence. - Dank (push to talk) 15:16, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd have a preference for having both years mentioned, but I'm not overly worried either way. - SchroCat (talk) 15:31, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

bob mann[edit]

i had four questions about this blurb.

  • although the blurb states that mann was the first black player for the green bay packers, this is actually not true: the article body notes that walt jean, who played for the packers in the 1920s, was african american, even though jean's teammates had not known this at the time. the article lead instead states that "Mann broke the color barrier", and the article body qualifies this statement somewhat by stating that the barrier "was officially broken" [emphasis added] by mann. admittedly, i am not certain what "officially" means in this context, and in this source, the packers themselves appear to question whether it was mann who was the one who broke the color barrier, which suggests that perhaps packers officials today may disagree with the statement that mann broke the color barrier with the packers. could this issue be resolved by replacing the "and" before "the first black player" with "who was credited at the time as"?
    interestingly, according to this source, two other football players, apparently acknowledged as black at the time, had signed with the packers before mann did, but were let go before playing in a game during the regular season, so i am assuming that, in this context, in order to be considered a player, one has to have played in a game during the regular season.
    • Race can be a tricky and loaded concept ... based on the one source I'm looking at, I'd rather that the blurb not take a definitive position that Mann was or wasn't the first black player for the Packers (unless better sources can be found concerning Walt Jean ... knowing that a person's father was black is not by itself proof that they were black, for a variety of definitions of "black" ... and we are of course in treacherous waters here). So I guess I'd prefer that we avoid the problem entirely by limiting the first sentence to "one of the first black players for the Detroit Lions". I feel strongly that we shouldn't as a rule try to use blurbs to solve problems that society hasn't figured out how to solve yet ... but I don't have any strong feelings about this blurb in particular. Gonzo fan2007 (good to see you back!), Cbl62 ... any preference on this one? - Dank (push to talk) 14:14, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • there is another issue with the same statement with respect to the detroit lions: mann does not appear to be the first black player to play in a game for the lions. the article body notes that mann and mel groomes were "the first African Americans to play for the Lions", and the article on groomes states that they made their debuts in the same game. (in addition, the groomes article reports that mann signed with the lions a week after groomes did, so arguably, groomes was the first black player for the lions.) should the blurb be reworded to reflect this? unfortunately, i have so far been unable to figure out a good way to clarify this in the blurb. the best suggestion i have come up with so far is to add "(alongside Mel Groomes)" after "Detroit Lions".
    • We don't necessarily have to mention Groomes or anyone else. See above. - Dank (push to talk) 14:14, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • to me, the statement that mann "remained with the Packers through the 1954 season" [emphasis added] means that mann played with the packers for the entire 1954 season. however, the article body states that he was let go in october that year. to avoid any potential confusion, would it be appropriate to replace "through the 1954 season" with "until 1954"? the latter phrase is also used in the article lead.
    • "Through" is often an ambiguous word; personally, I avoid it if I'm not dead sure what it means in context. - Dank (push to talk) 14:14, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • was mann really the nfl leader in yards per reception in 1949? the article asserts this, but the cited los angeles times source seems to make no mention of it. in fact, this pro-football-reference source asserts that it was elbie nickel who was the leader in yards per reception that year. interestingly, the same source notes that mann was the receiving yards per game leader that year, so perhaps this issue can be addressed by replacing "and yards per reception" with ", per game and overall,". (by the way, if this is done, i assume that this fact needs to also be added to the article itself.)

note that the issues involving jean and groomes were brought up during the fac nomination, and the article body was changed to address them. also, implementing only the first two solutions proposed here would result in the blurb violating the character limit, but implementing all of the first three (or all four) would not. dying (talk) 02:59, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, long weekend. I will dive into this more tomorrow. I edited the lead to say "through part of the 1954 season", so hopefully that should be resolved. Regarding the first two, I think the article may need to be tweaked a bit (the lead is better than the body), but I think it is important to note the importance of "breaking the color barrier", even if past black players played or were signed with either team. Breaking the color barrier is important as it is about knowingly signing black players. All that said, I'll take a look tomorrow and make some tweaks. Once the article is solid, the blurb should be easy enough to update. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 01:45, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. The devil is in the details, and I'm not faulting your language at all, this is just really hard to write about. "knowingly" (and many other words we might use here) has negative connotations. I agree the color barrier is important ... but since we only have 1025 characters max, we probably don't have enough space to define terms that some readers won't be familiar with, unless we get lucky. So ... not sure, I might bow out of this one, depending on which way you want to go. - Dank (push to talk) 12:59, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dank, my biggest concern is making sure the article is correct. I'll tackle the blurb in a bit.
dying, after rereading the article, I think the current language is fine regarding race. The lead says "broke the color barrier", which is an adequate summary of the body of the article, which includes some clarifying statements on what that means. Note, I removed the yards per reception. Not sure how that got in there, but its been a while.
Gonna look at the blurb now. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:39, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Made changes here. Clarified the receiving yards, changed to color barrier, added the acronym NFL and reduced National Football League in its second instance, removed duplicate "Detroit" and "Green Bay" and added "partway" for the 1954 season. Thoughts? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:43, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are questions I can't answer here ... I just have to trust that if someone has a problem with it, they'll say something. - Dank (push to talk) 13:09, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I added "(alongside Mel Groomes)" per Dying's suggestion above. - Dank (push to talk) 05:04, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
looks good. thanks, both of you. dying (talk) 11:59, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

mercury seven[edit]

i had three questions about this blurb.

  • is there a reason why the blurb states that the seven "created a new profession", while the article lead qualifies this statement by stating that they "created a new profession in the United States"? i assume that the only other country realistically attempting to send people into space was the soviet union, though the article doesn't really discuss the soviet human spaceflight program. (the timeline described in the "Vostok programme" article confirms that the mercury seven were selected before any of the cosmonauts were selected.)
  • to me, the phrasing "all the spaceflights of the Mercury program that had an astronaut on board" sounds rather awkward. would replacing it with "all the human-crewed spaceflights of the Mercury program" be an improvement? i wasn't sure if there was a reason for that specific wording, and didn't want to touch it unilaterally in case the replacement was inaccurate.
    • Not sure if anyone will agree, but "human-crewed" plants the suggestion for me that there's some other way to crew a flight. - Dank (push to talk) 23:07, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • is it more proper to say "grounded with an atrial fibrillation", or "grounded with atrial fibrillation"? i'm admittedly not overly familiar with the term, but i did notice that the "atrial fibrillation" article uses the phrase "with atrial fibrillation" often, while "with an atrial fibrillation" is not used at all.

dying (talk) 22:59, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  1. The trimming of words to reduce the lead down to blurb size. The Soviet Union was the only country realistically considering sending people into space at the time. The article remains focused on the subject, and we don't normally write comparisons.
  2. There were automated flights, and flights with chimpanzees on board. I dislike the term "crewed" and avoid it when I can.
  3. You are quite right. I have deleted the 'an"
Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:21, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ah, good to know. i will keep in mind your aversion to the word "crewed" in the future. thanks, Hawkeye7! dying (talk) 23:59, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

telopea speciosissima[edit]

i have noticed that, when a featured species article is titled with the species's binomial name, the initial bolded link usually uses the article title as the link text. (see, for example, here, here, here, and here.) is this a general standard at tfa, like the one for biography blurbs? if so, i'd suggest the following replacement.

The New South Wales waratah (Telopea speciosissima)
→   Telopea speciosissima, commonly known as the New South Wales waratah,

note that i used "commonly known as" (as the article lead does) because the blurb is currently under the 925-character limit, and this addition would bring the blurb back up to within the standard range. (i didn't address the character limit in my copyedit since i didn't want to unilaterally add any details to the blurb if the limit could easily be addressed with the substitution above.) also, if this change is made, i think the links to the recently featured articles in the three blurbs following this one should be similarly updated to use the binomial name as the link text instead. dying (talk) 00:59, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd really prefer not to. I'm trying to reach as many of our 5 million Main Page readers as I can, not just the ones who feel comfortable with botanical Latin. If we were talking about a species with varied or obscure common names, then sure, sometimes the scientific name is preferable. - Dank (push to talk) 01:36, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
oh, that is totally fine, Dank. i only brought it up since it seemed like an unusual departure, and i wasn't sure if it was deliberate. in that case, to address the blurb length, how does the following substitution sound?
−
The shrub can be difficult to cultivate in home gardens, requiring good drainage and being vulnerable to fungal disease and pests.
+
The shrub can be difficult to cultivate in home gardens, as it requires good drainage yet adequate moisture, and is also vulnerable to fungal disease and pests.
this suggestion includes additional detail, taken from the article lead, that makes it more clear why cultivation is difficult (as presumably, simply providing good drainage isn't that hard). it also replaces the participle phrases with a more conventional structure, as i think the former is somewhat more awkward and isn't really necessary to save space in this case. dying (talk) 11:59, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See User talk:Casliber#Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 10, 2024. - Dank (push to talk) 13:31, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I added "No subspecies are recognised" to deal with the blurb length issue that you raised. - Dank (push to talk) 14:36, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

kurt vonnegut[edit]

i had two questions about this blurb.

  • the blurb and article lead both state that vonnegut published three collections of short stories, while the "Works" section of the article has four entries listed under "Short fiction collections" that were all published before his death: canary in a cat house, welcome to the monkey house, bagombo snuff box, and god bless you, dr. kevorkian. is the last one generally not considered a collection of short stories? to be clear, i don't really mind either way; i'm just asking to make sure that the collections weren't miscounted.
  • is it appropriate to state that "Numerous scholarly works" [emphasis added] have analyzed vonnegut's output? the word "Numerous" was present in the article lead when the article was promoted, but appears to have since been removed, and i don't think the article really expands on how many such scholarly works there were.

also, i wanted to note here that although i am not sure why "short story collections" is hyphenated in the article lead but not in the blurb, i decided against conforming the phrase in the blurb to that in the article lead because the phrase appears to be almost never hyphenated in article space on wikipedia. in addition, i noticed that the article switches between using "anti-war" and "antiwar", though as both the blurb and lead both only use "anti-war", i saw no need to change the instance in the blurb. dying (talk) 11:59, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

fallout[edit]

i had two questions about this blurb.

  • would the blurb be better served by a link to the "Atomic Age (design)" article, rather than the "Atomic Age" article? the latter article discusses a poorly defined time period which we may still be in the middle of, while the blurb appears to be referencing a particular style prevalent during the start of this time period.
  • would it be better to use the phrase "role-playing video games" at the end of the blurb prose, rather than "computer role-playing games"? since the blurb introduces fallout as a role-playing video game, i feel that the wording currently used in the blurb may suggest that role-playing video games are a subgenre of computer role-playing games, even though the "role-playing video game" article considers the two terms synonyms.

dying (talk) 11:59, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed the link per your first suggestion. As for the other suggestion, "computer role-playing games", in this context, refer to role-playing games designed and released for computers. Adopting your suggestion would imply that Fallout not only revived role-playing games on computers but role-playing video games in general, which is inaccurate as console role-playing games such as Chrono Trigger were still popular at the time. Lazman321 (talk) 16:04, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
oh, you're right, Lazman321. although the "role-playing video game" article initially equates the terms "role-playing video game" and "computer role-playing game", it later appears to contradict itself by making a distinction between "console RPGs" and "computer RPGs". to avoid ambiguity, would it be useful to replace "computer role-playing games" with "Western role-playing video games"? admittedly, i am unsure if this substitution would be entirely accurate. in any case, i think the current blurb is fine, so there is no need to change anything if you prefer the current wording. dying (talk) 13:59, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ravenpuff, regarding this diff, i have noticed that, in general, wikipedians have overwhelmingly preferred to use a hyphen in phrases of the form "mid-x century" instead of an en dash. for example, in this search in article space for "mid" and "century", the first 500 results show no such instances using an en dash. i think an argument could be made for mos:prefixdash, but i am not sure it necessarily applies here: "mid" could be interpreted as modifying either the ordinal x or the phrase "x century", with virtually no difference in meaning between the two, and it looks like the most common interpretation has been the first. to be clear, i don't personally have a preference either way, but i am raising the issue because i am not sure if it is wise to stylize the phrase in one way when editors have so clearly chosen to stylize it in another.
    on a similar note, the hyphen you added to "character-customization scheme" seems unnecessary, as a scheme for character customization is the same as a customization scheme for characters. i think mos:hyphen, in this case, allows the hyphen's use, but does not necessitate it, and since the article lead itself doesn't use it, i had left the phrase in the blurb alone. a google search for the phrase "character customization scheme" appears to only give one result that uses the hyphen, in the phrase "robust character-customization scheme", where i would argue that its use was appropriate to make it clear that the phrase was not referring to a robust-character customization scheme. dying (talk) 22:59, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1999 sydney hailstorm[edit]

i had two questions about this blurb.

  • although the hailstorm, with a cost of around 1.7 billion aud, appears to have been australia's costliest natural disaster both at the time this article was promoted in 2007 and when it was featured at tfa in 2008, i am not sure if it has remained the costliest. the australian floods of 2022 (as covered here, here, and here) have collectively caused an estimated 6 billion aud in damage, as noted in this abc source.
    note that the same source states that, had the hailstorm occurred in 2023, it would have been the costliest in terms of 2023 aud at around 8.85 billion aud, taking into account factors such as the growth of sydney since 1999 and the increased costs of building to modern code. on the other hand, this source from the guardian reports that if only inflation is taken into account, the 1999 hailstorm's cost was about 3.28 billion in 2023 aud, which is well under the cost of the 2022 floods.
    should the blurb be updated to reflect this? if so, then i am admittedly not sure how best to do so. personally, i think trying to explain the 8.85 billion aud estimate in the blurb would be rather confusing, so perhaps it would be easier to simply replace "the costliest natural disaster in Australian history" with either (1) "the second-costliest natural disaster in Australian history", (2) "the costliest natural disaster in Australian history until 2022,", or (3) "the costliest natural disaster in Australian history at the time,". of course, if the blurb is updated, then i think the article should be similarly updated as well.
  • should a conversion to either the short ton or the long ton (or both) be provided for the metric value of 500,000 tonnes? personally, i think it is fine as is, since the number appears to be a very vague estimate, and using something like "500,000 tonnes (500,000 long tons; 500,000 short tons)" may cause unnecessary confusion while providing little benefit. however, i don't know if the standard is to present a conversion regardless.

courtesy pinging the participants of this relevant error report: Sca, Modest Genius, and Firefangledfeathers. dying (talk) 11:59, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I added a pointer to this discussion at the article talk page. - Dank (push to talk) 14:43, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've added "at the time" to the blurb per your third option, to be safe (and transparent). I hope people will look at this issue in the article as well, but I can't say it's wrong there, because the total damage from flooding depends entirely on what time frame you choose to look at. The 1999 storm, by contrast, was a one-time thing. - Dank (push to talk) 13:34, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

walt whitman's lectures on abraham lincoln[edit]

should "well received" be hyphenated, or is the phrase fine as is? mos:hyphen states that "[a] hyphen is normally used when the adverb well precedes a participle used [...] predicatively, if well is necessary to, or alters, the sense of the adjective rather than simply intensifying it". (i am assuming that, by "adjective", mos:hyphen is referring to the participle used as a modifier, as otherwise the guideline doesn't make much sense.) a search for "was well received" in article space seems to show the hyphen being used about a fifth of the time, while wiktionary has an entry for "well-received" which explicitly lists two examples of the hyphenated modifier being used predicatively. (interestingly, the article scheduled to run at tfa after this one does use "well-received" predicatively, but doesn't use the phrase in the blurb.) i don't personally have a preference.

courtesy pinging Espresso Addict, who made this relevant edit to a tfa blurb. dying (talk) 11:59, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Replying on your talk page. - Dank (push to talk) 12:58, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

william t. stearn[edit]

i had four questions about this blurb.

  • i couldn't find a source for the statement that the pictured plant was the first described by stearn. did i somehow miss it? the article prose states that it was "a new species", but apparently doesn't state that it was the first new species that stearn described. (an unsourced caption makes the assertion, though.)
    • It was in the previous blurb. I've changed it to "described by Stearn". - Dank (push to talk) 14:47, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • is it correct to capitalize "President" in "President of the Linnean Society"? i don't know if this title would fall under the "commercial and informal titles" described in mos:jobtitles. interestingly, the article prose never capitalizes "president" anywhere, though it did when the article was first promoted. i don't have a personal preference.
  • are the dates during which stearn held the positions of head librarian and scientific officer accurate?
    the article body appears to state that stearn began working at the library in 1933 as an assistant librarian, and that he assumed the position of librarian six months later, but doesn't explicitly state whether the latter occurred in 1933 or 1934. the article lead simply states that he was a librarian from 1933 to 1952, rather than the head librarian. (surprisingly, this source from the royal horticultural society states that stearn became "Lindley Librarian" in 1939.)
    also, the article body notes that stearn retired from the natural history museum in 1976 as "the Senior Principal Scientific Officer", but does not state that he started there as a scientific officer. the cited source from the independent simply states that he began his time there "as a botanist", and i admittedly don't know if the museum considered all botanists to be scientific officers.
  • the article appears to cite the international plant names index (ipni) for the statement that stearn is the biological authority for more than 400 taxa. i looked up his entry on ipni, and it seems to tell me that there are "269 names published by Stearn". am i looking in the wrong place? i admit that i am not familiar with ipni, and also that it is entirely possible that my machine is not handling the site's javascript code correctly.
    • IPNI has undergone quite a lot of editing over the years. WT:PLANTS is probably the right place to ask about this if you're curious. - Dank (push to talk) 14:47, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

by the way, i thought it might be interesting to note that the society for the history of natural history copied much of the lead of this wikipedia article to use on their page for the annual essay prize named after stearn. dying (talk) 13:59, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's quite a lot of respect and overlap between the various communities of plant editors. - Dank (push to talk) 14:47, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a pointer to this discussion to the article's talk page. - Dank (push to talk) 15:31, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the number of plants he's the botanical authority for, for the moment. Now 917 characters (and 917 is fine, I think, given that it could go back up if another source is found). - Dank (push to talk) 14:02, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the cited source did list 269 plants, so if we can't show that he is the botanical authority for more than 400 of them, i think the original statement could work if "over 400" was replaced with "hundreds of". dying (talk) 09:59, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd rather not. - Dank (push to talk) 13:56, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

rumours[edit]

i had two questions about this blurb.

  • the current wording of the blurb states that the album's music "[e]xpand[s] on the band's self-titled 1975 album". is this accurate? the wording used in the article lead suggests that the band had wanted to expand on the success of the 1975 album. also, i couldn't find much in the article body suggesting that the music in the 1975 album was used as the basis of anything in the 1977 album. in fact, the article notes that one critic considered the 1977 album "'more consistent and more eccentric' than its predecessor". if the 1977 album's music wasn't actually an expansion of that in the 1975 album, i think a substitution like the one below may be appropriate.
    −
    Expanding on the band's self-titled [[Fleetwood Mac (1975 album)|1975 album]], the music includes a mix of electric and acoustic instrumentation
    		+
    Following the band's self-titled [[Fleetwood Mac (1975 album)|1975 album]], ''Rumours'' includes a mix of electric and acoustic instrumentation
  • is there a source for the statement that rumours is ranked ninth amongst the best-selling albums of all time? currently, i can only find this assertion in the lead without a citation.
    • It's listed at 10th in List of best-selling albums, with two citations (2011 and 2013 I think). Btw, the FAC nominator you're pinging hasn't edited since 2011. I've left a message on the article talk page inviting people to this discussion. - Dank (push to talk) 20:02, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think "ninth or tenth" would be an improvement, so I've pulled that text for now. Hopefully someone will check into this before it hits the Main Page. - Dank (push to talk) 19:05, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • if there are no good sources for the ranking, i think part of the original statement can be salvaged by replacing it with something more vague, like "It became one of the best-selling albums of all time,". dying (talk) 09:59, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • The sentence has been removed from the article lead, and the blurb gives a total for sales, so I'm thinking we're good to go here. - Dank (push to talk) 00:18, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

dying (talk) 13:59, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

katana zero[edit]

did stander actually intend to avoid having the player sit through cutscenes? the article states that he finds cutscenes problematic, but seems to acknowledge that he does use them. it even notes that one can skip cutscenes in a speedrun mode, which suggests that they are normally unskippable.

also, i admittedly don't know enough about copyright law to determine if the image currently featured is in the public domain. if the logo was created in the u.s., i am guessing that using it should be fine. this source states that stander is based in new york. however, the wikipedia article also notes that stander began developing the game while a student in canada, which has a slightly different threshold of originality. it's also possible that stander didn't create the logo, as he did hire artists for the game.

by the way, if the downloadable content ends up being released before or on the blurb's run date, i think the blurb should be updated. considering the fact that the content has been in the works for roughly five years, it being released within the next two weeks seems unlikely. however, there may be a decent chance that the content will be released on the run date because that is the game's fifth anniversary. dying (talk) 13:59, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The TFAR nomination for this article has some additional information. I have no comment on the copyright issue, but I did note that if there's a problem, the image I suggested in this version might be usable. - Dank (push to talk) 14:56, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi dying, Stander simply didn't want to force players to sit through cutscenes, not avoid them entirely. I think that nuance might've been lost when I condensed the lead to fit within the TFA wordcount. I think we can get around it by replacing it with the original lead sentence and then removing the line about ports and DLC. As for the logo, I'll do some looking into it. I think it should be fine, as a previous TFA of mine (Sonic the Hedgehog) used the franchise logo without any objection from what I recall, but to be safe I'll do some research tomorrow (I'm traveling right now so my time has been a bit limited). JOEBRO64 12:54, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
oh, Joebro64, the loss of any nuance due to compressing that verb phrase from the lead is entirely my fault, as the blurb originally had the same verb phrase as the lead until i copyedited the blurb. admittedly, though, i did not get the sense from the lead that stander did not want to avoid using cutscenes entirely. to me, the inclusion of unskippable cutscenes in the game simply meant that stander tried to not use unskippable cutscenes and failed. i had raised this issue because i was unsure if stander had actually wanted to not use unskippable cutscenes in the first place.
in any case, would the following substitution make the blurb more accurate?
−
game without unskippable dialogue or [[cutscene]]s
+
game that minimized unskippable dialogue and [[cutscene]]s
this does lengthen the blurb by a few characters, but we can bring it back down to below the limit without removing the last sentence by replacing "throughout" with "during", and "although" with "though", if that is alright with you.
by the way, what would you think about adding a comma to the blurb immediately after "the visuals"? embarrassingly, i repeatedly initially misinterpret "recruited artists to design the visuals and the musicians" to confusingly mean that the artists somehow designed the musicians, and then stumble when kiley and lodewijk are mentioned. the article uses "as well as" instead of "and the", so i don't have the same problem there. dying (talk) 21:59, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that should all work. Implemented JOEBRO64 09:51, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Did some looking. I can't confirm who designed the logo, but can confirm it was introduced a few months after Stander graduated (the game was announced in September 2015). That makes the chance it originated in Canada slim, but in the case that it did, COM:TOO Canada says that Canada's threshold of originality is close to the US's. I don't think the text is stylized enough to be above the threshold—here's a similarly-stylized video game logo that survived a deletion attempt, so I think we should be fine. JOEBRO64 10:04, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
not copyrightable in the u.s.
oh, to me, that sonic logo more clearly does not meet the threshold of originality. see, for example, how the three instances of the letter 'N' all look very similar to each other, while the three instances of the letter 'A' in the katana zero logo all look quite different. that being said, i agree that the katana zero logo is likely in the public domain if it was designed in the u.s., as the logo to the right is considered not copyrightable in the u.s., and i think more originality was involved in creating that logo.
in any case, i have no issues with having the katana zero logo run if others think it is okay. i had only raised the point in case no one noticed that the copyright issue in this case may involve more than just u.s. law. thanks for digging into the history of the logo for me.
by the way, for future reference, in order to link to the commons namespace on commons, commons has to be specified twice. i tend to use "c" for the first instance, and "COM" for the second, so "[[:c:COM:TOO Canada|com:too canada]]" will produce "com:too canada". dying (talk) 09:59, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

guallatiri[edit]

would it be more appropriate to replace "latest eruption" with "latest known eruption"? the article body seems to be uncertain whether the volcanic activity in 1985 was an eruption of guallatiri.

also, i wanted to note here that i think the "Kimsa Chata (Bolivia-Chile)" article should actually be at "Kimsa Chata (Bolivia–Chile)", as per mos:enbetween (as seen in the title of the "Bolivia–Chile border" article). if the article on the volcanic complex is subsequently moved, i think we should target the new title to conform with wp:mpnoredirect. dying (talk) 22:59, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jo-Jo, I went ahead and added "known"; feel free to revert. - Dank (push to talk) 23:11, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

nicoll highway collapse[edit]

i had two questions about this blurb.

  • would the opening sound more natural as "The Nicoll Highway collapsed in Singapore" instead of "The Nicoll Highway collapse occurred in Singapore"? the title seems descriptive to me, which makes the current wording appear somewhat forced. this is admittedly a minor point, though.
    • Done. Feel free to revert (ZKang123 or anyone). - Dank (push to talk) 23:34, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • is it proper to describe the "lack of monitoring and proper management of data" as "caused by human error"? using erroneous parameters in the simulation and designing an inadequate strut-waler support system seem like human errors, but the impression i got from the article was that the deficiencies in monitoring and data management were more systemic in nature. interestingly, the article body also uses the phrase "lack of monitoring and proper management of data" without explicitly attributing this to human error, and the cited ministry of manpower source considered the deficiencies to be part of the "human and systemic failures".

dying (talk) 22:59, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Dying: Perhaps reword to include systemic failure as well then. Will also clarify in article lead.--ZKang123 (talk) 07:08, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait, rereading, does "systemic" mean like system failure, and not to be confused with "systematic error"?--07:16, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
    • oh, glad you asked, as conflating "systemic" with "systematic" is a common mistake. to illustrate the terms, consider a government minister who systematically requests bribes from everyone requesting help, and then misplaces one of the bribes. the misplacing is human error, while the government corruption is a systemic issue. the "systemic" page might also offer you more insight.
      i had raised this point because i thought the collapse was very likely due to "human and systemic failures", so attributing the deficiencies in monitoring and data management specifically to human error seemed unusual to me. to be clear, i don't think it is necessary to explicitly attribute these deficiencies to systemic issues as well; simply dropping "caused by human error" would address this point sufficiently, and avoid making the sentence more complicated than it already is. i had hesitated to remove that phrase unilaterally in case i was missing something, and the deficiencies in question really were primarily attributable to human error. dying (talk) 09:59, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1984 world snooker championship[edit]

i had three questions about this blurb.

  • is it clear from the context that the "since" in "since the 1977 event" is meant to be interpreted inclusively, i.e., that the 1977 event is included in the count of eight? i suppose, if one deduces that the event is an annual one, it isn't difficult to calculate that the first of the streak began in 1977. interestingly, the last sentence in the blurb instead uses "since" in "since the 1978 event" exclusively. (note that this blurb from 2021 uses a similar construction, but because it uses "since 1977" instead, i feel that makes it more clear that "since" is to be interpreted inclusively. that's just my personal opinion, though.) i think one way to avoid the issue is to replace "since the 1977 event" with ", beginning with the 1977 event".
  • on a similar note, is it clear, when the blurb introduces "defending champion [...] Steve Davis, who had won the title twice previously", "previously" refers to the championships before 1984? to me, introducing davis as defending champion suggests that "previously" is being used to refer to championships aside from the one in 1983 that was just referred to. i think this issue can be easily addressed by replacing "had won the title twice previously" with "had also won the title in 1981".
  • is john bear considered a participant even though the article states that he "was scheduled to play but did not"? i'm admittedly not familiar with how statistics are kept in snooker, though if bear wouldn't normally be considered a participant, i think the blurb should reflect this. perhaps "94 participants" could be replaced with "93 participants", or alternatively with "94 entrants" (as worded in the article body). i recognize that this issue was discussed during the fac nomination, and although the article body was edited to address this, the lead appears to have been unchanged, resulting in the issue also appearing in the blurb.

dying (talk) 19:59, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I can't say I get involved in writing blurbs, but:
  • We usually say "since it was first played at the 1977 event", which explains it better. I see we haven't done that in the article either.
  • If we are talking semantics, a defending champion doesn't necessarily mean that they won the event the previous year. It's important we state they are a two-time champion at the time of the event, which is why it's worded as it is.
  • I'm pretty sure sources will include those who are a part of the draw as being participants, but I could be wrong.
Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:10, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
oh, that wording for the 1977 event sounds much better. what would you think about adding "there", so that it reads "since it was first played there at the 1977 event"? this would make it more clear that the 1977 event was not the first championship. dying (talk) 09:59, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Lee Vilenski: a defending champion doesn't necessarily mean that they won the event the previous year – er, not sure I agree with this Lee! Rodney Baggins (talk) 13:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we have certainly seen events where the previous championship was either played the same year, or two or more years before. Whilst I appreciate in the article we've said there was an event the prior year, the term "defending champion" is used regardless of if there is such an event. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:36, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes, I see what you mean. The term "defending champion" means that he/she won the previous edition of the event, regardless of when it actually happened. In the case of the world championship, that would normally be annually. Rodney Baggins (talk) 14:07, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I was just being pedantic, but we know that's not even true every year for the world championship. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 05:54, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I looked at Clive Everton's Snooker: the Records (1985), which is one of the few sources to specify the number of players, and he uses "entries". I think it would probably be best to use "entrants" consistently across the lead, body, and blurb. For the second bullet, maybe it can be phrased as something along the lines "was the defending champion from 1983, when he had won his second Championship, after first taking the title in 1981"? Regards,BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:35, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    would something like "English player Steve Davis (pictured), who was defending his second championship, met Jimmy White in the final" also work? if the suggestion above regarding the 1977 event is implemented, i admittedly don't think we have the space for the additional details. dying (talk) 09:59, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure about "defending his second championship". Pinging Rodney Baggins and HurricaneHiggins who are both much better than I am at writing, in case they can help. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 00:02, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't like it at all. Sounds like he's defending two titles. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:37, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't like it either. How about "English player Steve Davis (pictured), who had previously won the title in 1981 and 1983, met Jimmy White in the final"? HurricaneHiggins (talk) 08:23, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That does seem like the best solution. I like mentioning "defending champion" where I can, as sources comment on it, but it's not that much of a problem. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:43, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just read the whole blurb. I think it's confusing (for a general readership that knows nothing about snooker) to say that the event took place at the Crucible then say it featured 94 participants — when, as we know, only 32 players compete at the Crucible stage. I'd be inclined to suggest not mentioning qualifying at all, since it is too "in the weeds" for a broad readership. It might be more significant to mention that this was Jimmy White's first world final. HurricaneHiggins (talk) 10:08, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggested improvements to blurb:
    • "The event was organised by the World Professional Billiards and Snooker Association, and was the eighth consecutive World Snooker Championship to be held at the Crucible since the 1977 event." → "Organised by the World Professional Billiards and Snooker Association, this was the eighth consecutive World Snooker Championship to be held at the Crucible, the first being in 1977." (minus 2 words)
    • "It featured 94 participants..." → "There were 94 participants..."
    • "...who had won the title twice previously." → "...who had first won the title in 1981." (plus 1 word)
As I understand it, the "defending champion" is the person that has held the title since the previous event, regardless of when it was. So, in this case, the defending champion for the 1984 event indicates that he won the title in 1983, as he was the current holder of the title. However, there's always a possibility that the reader might fill in the gap and assume he also won it in 1982 (which he didn't; RIP Alex), so we should probably make it clear that he was a two-time world champion, having first won the title in 1981. So, how about this?
"...who had won the title twice previously." → "...who had previously won the title in 1981 and 1983." (plus 3 words) or even "...who had twice previously won the title (in 1981 and 1983)." (plus 4 words)
Hope this helps. Rodney Baggins (talk) 14:03, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I'm staying out of this one, I don't know enough about the topic. - Dank (push to talk) 22:23, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like discussions are ongoing; keep up the good work. I'm going to hand this one off to the WP:ERRORS folks. - Dank (push to talk) 23:21, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's a general point about my involvement or non-involvement that I've been wanting to make at WP:ERRORS ... and this feels like an appropriate moment. I'm going to mention as an example the point that was raised above about "was the eighth consecutive World Snooker Championship to be held at the Crucible since the 1977 event. It featured 94 participants" ... but I'm not trying to embarrass anyone and I don't think anyone at ERRORS will take it that way. Feel free to join the discussion there (or resolve things here, if you prefer). - Dank (push to talk) 14:17, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging Lee Vilenski, BennyOnTheLoose. - Dank (push to talk) 16:46, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

kathleen ferrier[edit]

  • article
  • blurb
  • nominatorfac
  • nominatortfa/r

i had two questions about this blurb.

  • is it appropriate to state that "Ferrier focussed on works by Bach, Brahms, Mahler and Elgar"? i admittedly didn't get the impression from the article that ferrier spent more time with works by those composers compared to works by others. for example, in the article on her discography, schubert is listed as the composer for twenty items, while elgar appears as the composer only twice. if "focussed" isn't quite the right word to use, i might suggest replacing "focussed on" with "performed". this also avoids the issue of the spelling of "focussed", which came up during the tfa/r nomination, and has been raised at wp:errors before.
    • Changed to "repertoire included". - Dank (push to talk) 21:37, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • did ferrier actually have a "close working relationship" with moore? the article body barely discusses him at all. he is only mentioned in two consecutive sentences, and the overwhelming majority of his appearances in the discography article are in her earliest recordings. if the relationship wasn't really that close, i'd recommend dropping either "close" or "and the accompanist Gerald Moore".

dying (talk) 09:59, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

stanley price weir[edit]

i had two questions about this blurb.

  • did weir leave the office of public service commissioner in 1930 or 1931? the article body appears to state that the government replaced weir with a different public service commissioner in 1930. if that was the case, i might suggest replacing "retirement as Public Service Commissioner" with "retirement from public service" or something similar.
  • the cited source from the australian dictionary of biography states that weir chaired the "Children's Welfare and Public Relief Board". was it also referred to simply as the "Public Relief Board"?

dying (talk) 05:59, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Peacemaker67, any preference on these? - Dank (push to talk) 21:39, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

death of blair peach[edit]

i had three questions about this blurb.

  • i was surprised to see that the blurb mentioned that the police report "concluded that Peach had been fatally hit on the head by an officer", so i skimmed parts of the report, and found that it states that "it can reasonably be concluded that a police officer struck the fatal blow" and that "almost certainly the officer who struck the blow had come from [an spg] carrier". to me, this seems like cass was deliberately trying to not explicitly conclude that the fatal injury was caused by a police officer, even though, as mcnee points out, the evidence assembled would normally lead one to this conclusion.
    if that is the case, would it be better to reword the blurb to more clearly reflect cass's reluctance? i think replacing "fatally hit on the head by an officer" with something like "fatally hit on the head, presumably by an officer" would be sufficient. admittedly, though, i haven't had the time to read the full report, so if, at some point, cass does explicitly conclude that an officer fatally struck peach, then consider this question irrelevant.
    No, he’s saying it was an officer as far as he can be sure (and he was relatively sure he even knew which officer too). All other sources also agree that was what the report says. - SchroCat (talk) 04:39, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • the blurb and article lead both state that peach's family was compensated in 1989, while the article body notes that they were awarded damages during the first half of 1988. did it take the metropolitan police more than six months to transfer the money, or is one of the dates incorrect? i don't have access to the source cited for the 1988 date, and was unable to find a source cited for the 1989 date.
    Typo in the original: corrected both. - SchroCat (talk) 04:43, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • the clause "The National Union of Teachers has set up an award in Peach's honour" suggests to me that the national union of teachers still exists, even though the organization merged with the association of teachers and lecturers to form the national education union (neu) in 2017. i am not sure if replacing "has" with "had" would resolve the issue, since this may suggest that the award is no longer granted, while this neu source shows that the award has survived the merger.
    would it be appropriate to reword the clause to use the passive voice, so that it reads "An award in Peach's honour was set up by the National Union of Teachers"? i believe, this way, the statement would be more agnostic about the current status of the national union of teachers. interestingly, the passive voice is used in the second half of the sentence in which that clause appears.

dying (talk) 23:59, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

into temptation[edit]

Jeremy Sisto (left) and Kristin Chenoweth on the film's poster
Jeremy Sisto (left) and Kristin Chenoweth on the film's poster

i had four questions about this blurb.

  • i thought i might note that vrt confirmed that the poster used as the infobox image in the article was released under gfdl 1.2, so i believe we can actually use it for the blurb in this case. (i have no idea why the infobox caption says that it's the cover of the dvd release, although the cover and the poster both appear to use the same photo.) does this seem like a good idea? at right is a mock-up of a possible crop, which removes a lot of the text that would be too small to read in the thumbnail anyway.
    • I try not to get involved in image questions, but I have to ask: what's the problem with the current image? We have a string of images of males in April; I thought an image of a female co-star might offer more balance. - Dank (push to talk) 15:52, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • was the film actually optioned in the los angeles neighbourhood of hollywood, or did the blurb mean to use "Hollywood" metonymically? if the latter, i would suggest retargeting the link to the "Cinema of the United States" article. note that there are similar links in the article lead and body.
    • Personally, I don't have confidence that the source knows where it was optioned, so I simply removed "in Hollywood". - Dank (push to talk) 15:52, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • would it be helpful to replace "find and save her" with something like "find her and prevent her suicide"? within the context of religion, "save" can have a very different meaning.
    • Changed it to "find her" (and I think the reader can presumably figure out that the priest had good intentions of some kind). Mentioning suicide once in a blurb can be jarring for some readers; I think twice in quick succession would be too much. - Dank (push to talk) 01:24, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • would it be appropriate to replace the link "global recession" with the link "Great Recession"? i think, when this article was promoted in 2011, the terminology regarding the financial turmoil of this period hadn't really been settled yet. also, the currently targeted article is more focused on the events of 2007 and 2008 that caused the recession, while the "Great Recession" article is more focused on the effects, and includes part of 2009 in the definition of the term. in addition, the suggested replacement avoids a mos:egg issue, as the link text may suggest that the link target is the "global recession" article.
    • I changed the link text to "2008 global recession". I don't have a preference which page we link to; there are several good options. - Dank (push to talk) 15:44, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

dying (talk) 23:59, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

after the deluge[edit]

would it be helpful to expand the link text of the "Compton" link so that it reads "Compton, Guildford" instead? there is apparently another compton in surrey, with nearly thrice the population and roughly four times the density. dying (talk) 23:59, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me, but I don't usually make edits on UK placenames. - Dank (push to talk) 01:13, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone? - Dank (push to talk) 15:56, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done. - Dank (push to talk) 23:35, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"cross road blues"[edit]

was the 1937 release mostly only heard around the mississippi delta? the blurb seems to suggest this, while the article body only seems to state that it was "'widely heard in the Delta'", without asserting that it was largely ignored everywhere else. to me, it seems like there just wasn't that much data recorded about the popularity of music releases at the time, so even if the single was only popular around the mississippi delta, it may be difficult to definitively conclude this. i think simply replacing "mainly" with "widely" would resolve this issue. (if this is done, then substituting the later "wider" with "greater" may also be useful to avoid using "wider" so shortly after "widely".) dying (talk) 23:59, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can see a reason for the switch to "mainly" (since there are no reliable sales figures, the editor may not believe that "widely" is justified, and we don't want to put it in quote marks in a blurb as the article does). OTOH, Dying has a point that we may not know that it wasn't heard elsewhere. I don't know. - Dank (push to talk) 01:11, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ojorojo hasn't edited since December. Anyone want to make the call here? - Dank (push to talk) 15:58, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

battle of grand gulf[edit]

i had two questions about this blurb.

  • i remember mentally noting to myself to check to see whether "battle" was capitalized in the article, though apparently i completely forgot to actually do so before publishing my copyedit. could someone please capitalize "battle" for me, to conform with the article?
    • Not me, and Hog Farm apparently has no preference. No one's going to criticize you for making the edit if you feel confident about the choice. - Dank (push to talk) 17:13, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • is "Mississippi Squadron" another proper name for the mississippi river squadron? the article on the squadron generally includes "River" in the name when referring to it, although it also mentions "Mississippi Flotilla" as an alternative name. (i suspect "River" was used to avoid suggesting that the military unit was a land-based army squadron, while the use of "Flotilla" causes no such issue.)

dying (talk) 23:59, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hog Farm and Gog the Mild might have opinions on this one. - Dank (push to talk) 16:01, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, "Mississippi Squadron" is an acceptable alternative name. I don't have strong feelings either way regarding the capitalization of battle. As a note - a new book on the Vicksburg campaign was released after the promotion of this article - the Smith 2023 source at Grant's Canal. That source still needs reviewed for both this article and Duckport Canal to see if there's anything to add/update for the articles but I should be able to do that this weekend. Hog Farm Talk 16:13, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the past 40-50 years the consensus of HQ RSs has swung to not capitalising battle in such cases. There are odd, random exceptions, but it is usually safe to assume it is uncapitalised. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:25, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've made a quick skim through the relevant part of the Smith work and have incorporated a little bit of information, so it should be fine for TFA now. The book itself is in my queue of books to read so I'll take another look through the article when I actually read Smith cover to cover. Hog Farm Talk 00:39, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

inaccessible island rail[edit]

i had four questions about this blurb.

  • should the u.k. be mentioned somewhere? i don't think it is necessary, since "South Atlantic" is much more helpful in this case, but the blurb does currently violate the general practice of mentioning a relevant country in the tfa blurb if the featured subject is strongly associated with one.
    • That's not my understanding of the general practice, but I'm not sure. One way to find out would be to leave it like it is and see if anyone objects. - Dank (push to talk) 01:05, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • is "Tristan Archipelago" a proper name? although the featured article consistently uses this capitalization, the targeted "Tristan da Cunha" article never refers to it as such, and generally appears to use "Tristan archipelago" or "Tristan da Cunha archipelago" instead.
  • would it be more appropriate to use the phrase "a low basal metabolic rate", as the article body does, instead of "low base metabolic rates"? i don't know if the use of the latter was deliberate to avoid using the less common word "basal", but the phrase "base metabolic rate" shows up only a few times in article space, and when i search for it on google, i am asked if i had meant "basal metabolic rate".
    • "basal" sounds fine to me. Done. - Dank (push to talk) 01:05, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • i was unable to find a cited source for the statement that the young are raised by both parents. did i somehow miss it? similarly, i can't seem to find a statement in the article body asserting that the bird's small clutch sizes are a result of adapting to the environment of inaccessible island, although the cited mcnab and ellis source seems to strongly suggest this. the article body does, however, mention that the bird's small body sizes may be due to the environment.

note that the blurb is approaching the character limit, so addressing some of the points above may cause the blurb to exceed the limit. dying (talk) 23:59, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      • Both claims are supported in the text by refs 18 and 21 respectively Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:59, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Today%27s_featured_article/April_2024&oldid=1220313044"