Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/January 2024
January is shaping up like this:
Notes
[edit]- Leave notes down here, please. - Dank (push to talk) 13:31, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
koala
[edit]i had two questions about this blurb.
- there's an interesting discrepancy between one sentence in the blurb and the corresponding sentence in the article lead.
| blurb: | Koalas typically inhabit open Eucalyptus woodlands, and the leaves of these trees make up most of their diet. | |
| lead: | Koalas typically inhabit open Eucalyptus woodland, as the leaves of these trees make up most of their diet. |
- notice that the blurb presents the sentence as two independent clauses connected by a conjunction, while the lead uses "as" to state that the first clause is true because of the fact mentioned in the second clause. (as an aside, i don't think there is any significant difference between using "woodland" or "woodlands". since the article body actually uses "woodlands" consistently, i left "woodlands" in the blurb as is.)i was about to replace the "and" in the blurb with "as" when i realized that the article body doesn't seem to explicitly state that there is a causal relation between the two facts; it actually mentions that koalas can be found in other types of trees despite the fact that their diet consists mostly of eucalypt leaves. i wasn't sure if the causal relation was something that fell under wp:bluesky (since i don't live in supermarkets), so i was wary of making this substitution unilaterally. would it be better to make the causal relation explicit in the blurb by replacing "and" with "as", or should the sentence be left as is?
- the blurb has a link to the "National symbols of Australia" article. however, the targeted article appears to focus only on official symbols of australia, and i am currently unable to find any evidence that the koala has any official status as a symbol of the country of australia. (the koala appears to be the faunal emblem of queensland, according to this pmc.gov.au source. i am not sure if australia has a faunal emblem. the australian coat of arms features the red kangaroo and emu, though this dfat.gov.au source suggests that neither is officially a faunal emblem.) would it be more appropriate to leave the text "symbol of the country" unlinked, to avoid suggesting that the koala has official status as a symbol of the country of australia?
dying (talk) 20:59, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
- I delinked it, feel free to revert. - Dank (push to talk) 21:17, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
the masked singer
[edit]i had two questions about this blurb.
- the sentence discussing the elimination of participants initially threw me off, because i had thought that, without any additional context, "[a]fter the last performance" had referred to the last performance of a season, rather than that of any one elimination round. would it be helpful to rephrase the sentence to avoid this misinterpretation? below is one possible rewrite.
the article lead provides similar context by mentioning that the panelists vote "in each episode", though it seems to me that there are some episodes where more than one contestant is eliminated, and some recap episodes where no one is eliminated, which is why i used the word "most".After the last performance, → In most episodes, after the last performance,
- That was my addition to avoid repetition, and your suggestion is fine. - Dank (push to talk) 01:04, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
- done. feel free to revert if there are any objections. dying (talk) 23:59, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
- That was my addition to avoid repetition, and your suggestion is fine. - Dank (push to talk) 01:04, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
- regarding the sentence about other south korean shows and other shows revolving around costumes, did the cause and effect somehow get flipped inadvertently? i think there is some truth to the statement in either direction, though the impression that i got from the article lead and body was that the article was trying to highlight the effect of the success of the series in the u.s. on those other types of shows, rather than the other way around. i am not sure how best to capture this, but the rephrasing below is based on the wording in the article lead.
| Its success has been credited to the growth of the Masked Singer franchise and interest in adapting South Korean reality television series and other television formats centered on costumes. | |
| → | The growth of the Masked Singer franchise and interest in adapting South Korean reality television series and other television formats centered on costumes has been credited to the show's success. |
dying (talk) 23:59, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
robert nimmo
[edit]i just wanted to note here that, in order to make this blurb conform with the general pattern used for other biographical blurbs, my copyedit for this blurb ended up being a bit more involved than usual, so i am hoping for a little extra scrutiny. i apologize in advance if i have inadvertently made anything worse. as usual, anyone should feel free to revert any of my changes if they disagree with my reasoning. dying (talk) 00:59, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
kyla
[edit]i had two questions about this blurb.
- the "List of awards and nominations received by Kyla" article appears to only list three mtv pilipinas music award wins: (1) favorite new artist in a video in 2001, (2) video of the year in 2001, and (3) favorite love ballad in 2002. the blurb and article lead both assert that kyla has won four such awards, but i couldn't find evidence of this, either in the body of the featured article or in the list of awards. am i missing something, or has kyla only won three such awards?
- if the parenthetical used after the mention of popstar kids uses a date range, should date ranges also be used for the other shows if appropriate? villa quintana aired from 2013 to 2014, but i am not sure if kyla appeared in the series for both years. she appears to still be a judge on tawag ng tanghalan, so perhaps "(2016)" could be replaced with "(since 2016)".
dying (talk) 22:59, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
- @Dying: - Thanks for catching that. It's in fact three, that total might have been copied in error from before it was re-written and I missed to count the total properly. Tried to check and it appears it was incorrectly credited as a win for being a featured artist in the "Best Male Video" category won by Gary Valenciano. [1]. Changes made to the blurb and article. Pseud 14 (talk) 00:16, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
- looks good. thanks, Pseud 14. dying (talk) 01:59, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
daisy bacon
[edit]i had three questions about this blurb.
- although the blurb links to the article "Ainslee's Magazine" when discussing bacon's editorship of the periodical's revival during the 1930s, the targeted article appears to consider 1926 as the magazine's last year of publication, and does not appear to address the revival at all. does the revival deserve its own article, or would the currently targeted article ideally eventually cover the revival as well?
- At the moment I think the target article would cover the revival, but it's debatable. Powers calls it "a revival of the title"; Stephensen-Payne says it's "arguably a revival" of the 1926 magazine. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:44, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
- no worries either way, Mike Christie. i had raised the issue to make sure that linking to the "Ainslee's Magazine" article was intentional. dying (talk) 23:59, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- At the moment I think the target article would cover the revival, but it's debatable. Powers calls it "a revival of the title"; Stephensen-Payne says it's "arguably a revival" of the 1926 magazine. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:44, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
- there seem to be a couple of discrepancies between the dates of bacon's editorships mentioned in the blurb and those listed at the end of the article. the blurb mentions that bacon received the editorship of detective story in 1941, but the article gives the time she edited the magazine as "Mid-1942 to Summer 1949". similarly, the blurb states that bacon became the editor of doc savage in "late 1948", while the article appears to state that she began editing there in "Winter 1949". is this simply due to the fact that there may have been some time between bacon beginning an editorship and her name appearing on the masthead? one issue of doc savage that apparently would have appeared in 1948 was skipped due to disagreements between bacon and lester dent, so that would explain the second discrepancy, but i was unable to find a similar explanation for the first.
- For Detective Story, the change was in 1941 according to Powers, who cites letters from a private collection between Bogart and Dent, so I can't follow up there to get more precise dates. The Galactic Central index doesn't give the editor in every case; the first one in the time range we're interested in that lists an editor is May 1942. There is always a delay between an editor taking over and their name appearing on the masthead, so it could easily have been 1942, though I think it's likely that it would have been earlier than May. I used "mid-1942" to avoid being specific. Perhaps this could be changed to "Late 1941 or early 1942"? For Doc Savage, you're right that the missing issue explains it; the first issue Bacon is credited with is the Winter 1949 issue. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:44, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
- oh, that's why the article states "Mid-1942"! i had noticed that the magazine was publishing monthly issues during those years, so had been surprised that it apparently took a few months before bacon appeared on the masthead. i admittedly am not sure how best to address this appropriately in the article. your suggestion sounds good. adding a footnote to explain the uncertainty may also be useful, but not necessary. dying (talk) 23:59, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- For Detective Story, the change was in 1941 according to Powers, who cites letters from a private collection between Bogart and Dent, so I can't follow up there to get more precise dates. The Galactic Central index doesn't give the editor in every case; the first one in the time range we're interested in that lists an editor is May 1942. There is always a delay between an editor taking over and their name appearing on the masthead, so it could easily have been 1942, though I think it's likely that it would have been earlier than May. I used "mid-1942" to avoid being specific. Perhaps this could be changed to "Late 1941 or early 1942"? For Doc Savage, you're right that the missing issue explains it; the first issue Bacon is credited with is the Winter 1949 issue. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:44, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
- the blurb states that "Street & Smith shut down all their pulps the following April", though the article body explicitly states that astounding science fiction escaped this fate. should the statement in the blurb be qualified in some way? perhaps adding "virtually" before "all their pulps" would be appropriate.
- Astounding was no longer a pulp in 1949; it had become a digest magazine in 1943. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:44, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
- oh, i had actually been wondering about whether this was an issue of how "pulp" is defined. the "pulp magazine" article states that "[d]igest magazines [...] were also regarded as pulps", though i also believe that the two magazine types are sometimes considered distinct, so i wasn't sure which definition was being used here. the blurb and lead of the featured article appear to treat them as distinct, but i was then surprised to see the article body mention that astounding science fiction was an "exception" to "all their pulp fiction magazines", so i was assuming that the body considered digest magazines a subset of pulp magazines. in any case, using either definition is fine with me. dying (talk) 23:59, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- I removed the mention of Astounding as it's the only time it's mentioned in the article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library)
- thanks, Mike Christie. dying (talk) 22:59, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
- I removed the mention of Astounding as it's the only time it's mentioned in the article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library)
- oh, i had actually been wondering about whether this was an issue of how "pulp" is defined. the "pulp magazine" article states that "[d]igest magazines [...] were also regarded as pulps", though i also believe that the two magazine types are sometimes considered distinct, so i wasn't sure which definition was being used here. the blurb and lead of the featured article appear to treat them as distinct, but i was then surprised to see the article body mention that astounding science fiction was an "exception" to "all their pulp fiction magazines", so i was assuming that the body considered digest magazines a subset of pulp magazines. in any case, using either definition is fine with me. dying (talk) 23:59, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Astounding was no longer a pulp in 1949; it had become a digest magazine in 1943. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:44, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
dying (talk) 22:59, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
communication
[edit]i am worried that the reason why the text "linguistic" is linked to the "language" article may not be readily apparent to those readers unfamiliar with what the word "linguistic" means: the targeted article does not appear to mention the word until defining the term "linguistics" in the fourth paragraph of the lead. to avoid potential confusion, would it be helpful to swap this link target with that of the text "verbal communication", which currently targets the "linguistics" article? alternatively, the text "verbal communication" could simply be left unlinked, as a similar link in the article body was removed in response to a comment during the fac nomination. dying (talk) 22:59, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
- No preference. - Dank (push to talk) 23:18, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
- Done, I unlinked "verbal communication" and moved the link to "linguistic". I don't think we need an additional link to language. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:16, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
- looks good. thanks, Phlsph7. dying (talk) 00:59, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
- Done, I unlinked "verbal communication" and moved the link to "linguistic". I don't think we need an additional link to language. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:16, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
the firebird
[edit]i had trouble confirming that the film version was released in 1959. is this entry in imdb the one that covers the film? that entry appears to list a release date in 1960. i recognize that wp:imdb does not consider imdb a reliable source, though that film's release in 1960 is also confirmed by the new york public library here, and by the danish film institute here. i noticed that the cited anderson source only mentioned that "[i]t was filmed in 1959" without giving a release date. (i was unable to access the cited au source.) dying (talk) 00:59, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
- @Dying, wow, good catch- fixed to "made in" or similar in the article and in the blurb. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 01:59, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
- looks good. thanks, MyCatIsAChonk. dying (talk) 23:59, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
rock parrot
[edit]
i had two questions about this blurb.
- it looks like the image in the infobox has been updated since the article was first promoted to featured status. would the newer image be a better choice for the blurb?
- I passed on that image because the colors are so similar; I thought that people with even mild vision difficulties might have difficulty seeing the bird, at least at thumbnail size. But I could be wrong. - Dank (push to talk) 02:53, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
- i had actually been wondering the same thing. the newer picture shows the bird's blue band more clearly, but i don't think this really matters on the main page, when the corresponding thumbnails are so small anyway, so i had felt that the lack of contrast in the newer image was an overriding concern. i had raised my original question in case i was missing something, since the older image was completely removed from the article.interestingly, i had actually thought that the best image to use was another one further down the page, though i don't know if the fact that the bird is partially obstructed in this image is what prevented it from being selected. i've included, at right, a mock-up of how this image could be cropped for the main page, in case it is of any interest. dying (talk) 23:59, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- is it appropriate for the blurb and article lead to state that the parrot has "a dark blue frontal band line across the crown" [emphasis added]? i am admittedly no expert in bird anatomy, so am assuming that the term "crown" is defined similarly to how "crown" is usually defined for humans and similar species: it is essentially the top of the head. however, the pictures of the bird in the featured article do not seem to show a dark blue band across the top of the head. the article body actually uses the wording "across the upper forehead between the eyes" instead. i think the term "crown" may be appropriate if a bird's crown includes the forehead, but the definition of "pileum" suggests to me that the crown and the forehead are considered to be separate regions of the head.
dying (talk) 23:59, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
- i am just noting here that a dyk hook with 29 nominated articles has been scheduled to run on the same date as this blurb. i don't think there will be any significant issues with main page balance because the dyk set is being run with six hooks (rather than the usual eight), but i thought i might make note of it, as i had raised the possibility of this hook causing problems before. dying (talk) 22:59, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
sms prinz adalbert
[edit]i am not sure if the article was written with a specific english variety in mind, but i did notice that "at speed", which is used in the caption in the blurb, is considered by merriam-webster to be "chiefly British", while the spelling "armored cruiser", which is used in the prose of the blurb, is probably considered not as british. the caption in the infobox actually states "SMS Prinz Adalbert at full speed", though i am unable to independently confirm that the ship was actually at full speed. (this appears to be the photo's source.)
is a caption even necessary in this case? this ship blurb, with an image showing the ship in question, doesn't use a caption. similarly, we could simply replace "caption=SMS ''Prinz Adalbert'' at speed" with "title=SMS Prinz Adalbert (1901)", as the fact that the ship was moving is self-evident from the image. to help those unable to see the image, perhaps adding "|alt="SMS Prinz Adalbert underway" would be helpful without being committed to how fast the ship was going.
by the way, could someone please add "|title=French battleship Bouvet" to that other blurb? i just realized that i missed this on my earlier pass. dying (talk) 23:59, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
- Done (re Bouvet). - Dank (push to talk) 00:12, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
carucage
[edit]is it proper to use a capital 'S' in "Domesday Survey"? i noticed that the linked "Domesday Book" article uses the phrase twice in the article body, once with a capital 'S' and once without, and that the name of wikisource's portal on the subject does not use a capital 'S'. a cursory google search showed me that herefordshire council uses a capital 'S' (here), while other sources that do not use a capital 'S' include the national archives (here), the bbc (here), the university of oxford (here), and the university of cambridge (here). dying (talk) 23:59, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- "Domesday Book survey" would get around the problem, I think, with or without italics (your choice). - Dank (push to talk) 00:31, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- Dank, i've implemented your suggestion. i opted to not use italics because i don't think "Domesday Book" is a title, and the article on the book appears to generally not use italics for "Domesday Book" either. feel free to revert or modify if there are any objections.Ravenpuff, i am not sure if the mos:numnotes guidance regarding "[a]void[ing] beginning a sentence with a figure" also applies to captions, but i had included an article at the beginning of the caption just in case it did. i have no issues with the article's omission if the guidance does not apply here; i just wanted to let you know why i had included it in the first place. dying (talk) 22:59, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
fleetwood park racetrack
[edit]i had three questions about this blurb.
- would it be appropriate to replace "the Bronx, New York, United States" with "the Bronx in New York City"? the latter format is similar to that used for tfa blurbs on subjects in manhattan, as seen here and here, while i worry that the former may suggest that the bronx is a city in the state of new york. also, if we explicitly mention new york city, i think we can drop the ", United States", as i believe the current practice is to assume that main page readers know that new york city is in the united states. the city itself doesn't have to be linked; the practice seems to vary from blurb to blurb.
- should "the New York Ledger" be formatted as "The New York Ledger" instead? there seems to be disagreement over this issue that is also present in the linked article as well as its talk page, so i don't actually know if one version is to be preferred over the other. i just wanted to raise the issue to see if the formatting chosen for the blurb was deliberate. (i was unable to find the periodical mentioned in the cited wells source.)
- would it be an improvement to feature a cropped version of the image? i don't think the text below the drawing is really visible in the thumbnail anyway.
dying (talk) 23:59, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
- @Dying I'm fine with the first change (the Bronx). I have no opinion on the second (New York Ledger), and agree that a cropped image would work better. I've generated the cropped version in commons. I'm unfamiliar with the process here; should I go ahead and make those changes myself, or does somebody else need to do it? RoySmith (talk) 00:20, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
- oh, yeah, RoySmith, there is no similar restriction of editing blurbs here at tfa, so feel free to make the changes yourself. (for those who don't know, RoySmith is a regular administrator at dyk, where nominators and reviewers are generally not allowed to edit promoted hooks, as noted in wp:dyktrim.)i think the main unwritten rule here regarding editing blurbs is to try to avoid making edits shortly before a blurb falls under cascading protection, to give fac nominators a chance to review and revise the blurb without seeking administrator intervention. however, this is largely regarding edits to blurbs when one is not the fac nominator, so it wouldn't apply to you in this case anyway. dying (talk) 01:59, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
- OK, thanks for the assistance. I've made the updates. I checked the article for the Ledger; it's mentioned twice, both times as "the New York Ledger", so I've left it that way in the blurb. I can't honestly say which is more correct, but at least it's consistent. RoySmith (talk) 02:20, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
- oh, yeah, RoySmith, there is no similar restriction of editing blurbs here at tfa, so feel free to make the changes yourself. (for those who don't know, RoySmith is a regular administrator at dyk, where nominators and reviewers are generally not allowed to edit promoted hooks, as noted in wp:dyktrim.)i think the main unwritten rule here regarding editing blurbs is to try to avoid making edits shortly before a blurb falls under cascading protection, to give fac nominators a chance to review and revise the blurb without seeking administrator intervention. however, this is largely regarding edits to blurbs when one is not the fac nominator, so it wouldn't apply to you in this case anyway. dying (talk) 01:59, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
.jpg)
Gave it some thought ... I'm not comfortable with the first change, because I know there are a lot of editors that seem to have strong feelings about not giving special entitlements to New York City, London, Paris, or any other city. My suggestion (and I made the edit) is: I kept your wording, but changed [[harness racing]] to [[Harness racing#North America|American harness racing]], since the sport differs considerably from country to country. This isn't something that annoys me personally, and I'm aware that country names are often left off of certain cities in reliable sources. I'm just saying that, regardless of which way we do it, there are people who have strong feelings about this, and I always try to mention the country (if location is central to understanding) somewhere in the first two sentences, if I can come up with a good excuse to do it. (If someone else writes the blurb, I don't have a preference how they handle this issue.) - Dank (push to talk) 17:19, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
handel's lost hamburg operas
[edit]although the blurb and article lead both mention that the three operas were composed when handel lived in hamburg, the article body actually states that it is unclear whether he completed florindo and daphne while in hamburg, noting that they may have been composed after he had already left for italy. is this a discrepancy that should be resolved? dying (talk) 23:59, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
mark baldwin
[edit]the blurb, article lead, and article body all mention that, in 1890, baldwin was the leader of the players' league in complete games, with 56. however, looking at the cited baseball-reference source, i think baldwin had only 53 complete games that year. it seems possible that the "56" was accidentally copied from under the "Games Started" category, which baldwin also led that year, along with silver king. am i not reading the source correctly? dying (talk) 23:59, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Dying: Let me see. Therapyisgood (talk) 18:47, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- Funnily enough the infobox had the right number. I checked the source and you're right. I've updated the lead and article body, will update the blurb soon. Therapyisgood (talk) 18:52, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- Updated blurb. Anything else just ping. Therapyisgood (talk) 18:55, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- looks good. thanks, Therapyisgood. dying (talk) 19:59, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- Updated blurb. Anything else just ping. Therapyisgood (talk) 18:55, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- Funnily enough the infobox had the right number. I checked the source and you're right. I've updated the lead and article body, will update the blurb soon. Therapyisgood (talk) 18:52, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
homeworld
[edit]i had three questions about this blurb.
- i recognize that it was difficult to find a relevant image for this blurb, so i think the current choice is fine, but i also wanted to raise a few points after reading this discussion regarding the drafting of the blurb.
- the "Sierra Entertainment" article actually states that ken williams left cuc international before roberta williams left sierra. (there seem to be a number of conflicting sources, but the overall impression i got was that ken left sierra in 1997 and roberta left in 1999 because she wanted to finish her work on king's quest: mask of eternity.) this suggests to me that, if either of them had a connection to sierra at the time the company decided to publish the game, it would have been roberta. if that is the case, would it be more appropriate to feature either a picture of the couple, or one of roberta, instead of one of just ken? (note that i admittedly am unable to rule out the possibility that ken had somehow played a part in sierra's decision while roberta didn't.)by the way, i just realized that i should have added ", pictured in 2022" to the caption, as the photo was taken decades after the game was published, but this may be irrelevant if we end up not using the current image anyway.
- the discussion of the draft also mentioned the possibility of using a logo for the homeworld remastered collection. would this be a better option? it bypasses the issue of whether or not either ken or roberta had anything to do with homeworld. i found this image on the official website for the collection. note that if we end up using this image, i think we should only use the text part of the logo, as i am unsure if the upper part is copyrightable.
- by the way, Dank, to answer your question here, i mentioned "co-founder" because i could not find any stronger connection between ken and homeworld at the time. i am not sure when exactly ken left sierra, but all the sources i have seen appear to give a date before 1999, when homeworld was released. i could easily be wrong, though; i haven't had much time to delve into this specific issue. also, although i acknowledge that fandom is not a reliable source, on the sierra wiki there, a page about ken does give a decent overview of how muddled the history of his involvement in sierra after its sale to cuc international is.
- metacritic appears to now list homeworld third amongst all video games in 1999. (apparently, street fighter alpha 3, which was listed third around the time the article was promoted to featured status, is no longer mentioned in the list, and i am having trouble figuring out why. in any case, street fighter alpha 3 appears to have been first released in 1998, so perhaps it never belonged in the list in the first place.) should the blurb and article be updated to reflect this?
dying (talk) 00:59, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Re: Metacritic: yes, I've gone ahead and updated the article and blurb, and I believe you are correct as to the reason for the change (metacritic is not used on-wiki as a source for dates for good reason, and I suspect they either overlooked or ignored the Japanese playstation release inn late 1998 as well as the arcade releases altogether).
- Re: Image: I wish there was a better one; I'd be down for the remastered logo (text), as I think Ken's (or Roberta's) connection to this game is very tangential at best. I'm annoyed that I can't find a free-use picture of any of the actual developers. --PresN 13:19, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- No opinion here. Thanks PresN. - Dank (push to talk) 15:03, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
edward oxford
[edit]i had two questions about this blurb.
- i recognize that most biographical blurbs do not include a caption, but thought i might suggest one for this blurb because oxford clearly led very different lifestyles over the course of his lifetime. i noticed that the infobox uses the caption "Oxford, c. 1857", while the filename mentions "c 1856". however, i was unable to find evidence for either estimate in the source for the image. did i somehow miss it? if i did, then i think simply copying the caption in the infobox over to the blurb would be a good idea. alternatively, if there is no evidence for this date, i would suggest a caption like "Oxford, while an inmate at Bethlem Royal Hospital".
- the largely chronological nature of the blurb suggests to me that oxford worked as a decorator in melbourne. is this accurate? i did notice that the article body mentioned that a "James Freeman" worked as a painter in melbourne during the 1870s, though whether "James Freeman" was actually oxford appears uncertain. the impression i got from the article body was that oxford's work life in australia generally involved either writing or the church, and sometimes both at the same time. oxford appears to have worked as a decorator when he was an inmate, though if we are only referring to that point in his life, i feel that this should appear before the mention of australia.
dying (talk) 21:59, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
- I’ll check on the date in the morning, but I think the IB is correct (I suspect it’s in the Sinclair book)
- It’s probable he worked as a painter on his arrival (it was the only skill he really had when he arrived, and he’d have needed to earn money). His confirmed life of writing etc was five years after his arrival, so him painting in the early years is what the records (and the RS) suggest. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 22:17, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
- SchroCat, i agree that it's likely that "James Freeman" was actually oxford, but had brought the issue up because i wasn't certain if this should be assumed by a statement made in wikivoice on the main page. admittedly, my radar for these sorts of things may be more sensitive than usual because the folks at dyk recently reverted the promotion of a hook that asserted something in wikivoice which the article itself had suggested was uncertain. if you think doing so is okay in this case, i have no issues with it.by the way, i haven't added the caption because i wasn't sure if you thought it would be an improvement. the blurb works fine either way; i had only offered the suggestion in case you thought it would be helpful. dying (talk) 20:59, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
- I think it’s probably OK. - SchroCat (talk) 21:39, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
- SchroCat, i agree that it's likely that "James Freeman" was actually oxford, but had brought the issue up because i wasn't certain if this should be assumed by a statement made in wikivoice on the main page. admittedly, my radar for these sorts of things may be more sensitive than usual because the folks at dyk recently reverted the promotion of a hook that asserted something in wikivoice which the article itself had suggested was uncertain. if you think doing so is okay in this case, i have no issues with it.by the way, i haven't added the caption because i wasn't sure if you thought it would be an improvement. the blurb works fine either way; i had only offered the suggestion in case you thought it would be helpful. dying (talk) 20:59, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
- On another point, the first sentence was changed to read "Edward Oxford (1822–1900) was an English man who made an assassination attempt on Queen Victoria in 1840, the first of seven unrelated attempts." That seems ambiguous to me, so I removed ", the first of seven unrelated attempts". (I'll stop saying "feel free to revert, discussion is welcome", etc.; hopefully that's clear at this point). In the second sentence, I changed "neither firing" to "neither shot". - Dank (push to talk) 15:51, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
- Dank, i don't have issues with either change, but had been wondering what ambiguity was being introduced by dropping "during her lifetime". this is admittedly for my own edification, as i had trouble figuring it out myself and wanted to avoid introducing similar ambiguities in the future. i thought that perhaps one could read the passage as stating that oxford made seven unrelated assassination attempts, beginning with the one in 1840, but the original wording seems to afford this interpretation as well. dying (talk) 20:59, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
- User:Johnboddie and I thought that too many readers would read the sentence the way you're suggesting, that oxford made seven unrelated attempts. It may be that the current version of the sentence is what we should have had to begin with. - Dank (push to talk) 22:07, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
- Dank, i don't have issues with either change, but had been wondering what ambiguity was being introduced by dropping "during her lifetime". this is admittedly for my own edification, as i had trouble figuring it out myself and wanted to avoid introducing similar ambiguities in the future. i thought that perhaps one could read the passage as stating that oxford made seven unrelated assassination attempts, beginning with the one in 1840, but the original wording seems to afford this interpretation as well. dying (talk) 20:59, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
fluorine
[edit]
i had two questions about this blurb.
- i am hesitant about using a bohr model to illustrate this element blurb because i remember that the last time we used a bohr model for an element blurb, there were complaints that the image was inaccurate. also, despite not being a chemist, i can see how someone interested in nitpicking the current image can raise an argument about how it is not good enough for the main page. i believe, usually, if we have issues finding an appropriate image to use for an element blurb, it is because the element is not easily photographed. however, in this case, we appear to have a decent image of liquid fluorine, which is currently being used in the infobox. would it be more prudent to use this image instead? if a caption is desired, i think "Liquid fluorine, at extremely low temperature" may be suitable. it is based on the caption used in the infobox.courtesy pinging Sheila1988, who may have a preference for using the bohr model.
- I don't have an image preference, but I believe the complaining about the Bohr model the last time was because the Bohr model was largely irrelevant to (as I recall) astatine, atomic number 85. It's not irrelevant to fluorine. - Dank (push to talk) 00:32, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
- I understand that it's hard to get a relevant image for gas elements - I think a Bohr diagram is more relevant than liquid fluorine which is rarely encountered or used. A crystal of fluorite would also be an attractive image. Sheila1988 (talk) 09:32, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
- is there a more recent estimate for the annual global revenues of the fluorochemical industry? the blurb and article body both use an estimate for 2011. (the value in the article lead is wholly inaccurate.)
dying (talk) 23:59, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
w. somerset maugham
[edit]did maugham only begin incorporating his mi6 experience into his short stories after he had left the service? the article mentions that the publication of some of his spy stories was prohibited until 1928, but i had trouble determining when maugham actually began writing them. if it is unclear whether maugham began working on the stories while still an agent, i think replacing ", later drawing on his experiences" with ". He drew on this experience" would avoid the issue. dying (talk) 23:59, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
- I replaced a period/full stop with a semicolon; feel free to revert or discuss. - Dank (push to talk) 00:36, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
- Also, I reverted "after Haxton died" back to "after Haxton's death", on the general principle that it's not wise to fiddle with the wording on hot-button or emotional issues just to make something a little longer or shorter. For anything involving death, sex, and a variety of other issues, some readers will assign different meanings to different words. (The character count is now 1026.) - Dank (push to talk) 16:32, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
space invaders
[edit]the blurb's wording currently treats breakout as a target shooting game, which i would admittedly hesitate to do myself. the breakout article does not appear to describe it as a target shooting game, and although breakout is mentioned in the "shooter game" article, it is mentioned as a precursor to space invaders, and not explicitly as an example of the shooter game genre. in addition, if breakout is considered a target shooting game, then i feel that pong would be considered one too, and possibly even games such as nba jam.
also, looking more closely at the wording, i'm not even sure if gun fight is accurately described as a "target shooting game". the "shooter game" article has a specific definition of "[s]hooting gallery games (also known as 'target shooting' games)", which i feel does not encompass gun fight. in fact, the gun fight article contains neither the word "target" nor the word "gallery".
it also seems strange to me to highlight gun fight as a shooter game in the first place, since this is presumably self-evident from the game's title, and the featured article doesn't mention nishikado being inspired by the shooter game aspects of the game design in gun fight anyway. (gun fight is the north american version of western gun, a game that nishikado designed himself; what gun fight inspired were hardware design choices not made in western gun.)
would it be more appropriate to simply replace "target shooting games" with "games"? i had also considered mentioning gun fight before breakout to list the games in chronological order, but i think breakout had a stronger influence than gun fight did. dying (talk) 23:59, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
- Since the FAC nominator is retired, let's ping @PresN, in case he has an opinion on this. - Dank (push to talk) 00:03, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, I'd replace "target shooting games" with "games". "target shooting games" is not a well-defined genre outside of games that explicitly ape the carnival game, and I'd hesitate to call Breakout one. Dropping the namedrop of the putative microgenre is an easy fix. --PresN 22:35, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
- Done. - Dank (push to talk) 22:56, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
- looks good. thanks, PresN and Dank. dying (talk) 22:59, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
- Done. - Dank (push to talk) 22:56, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, I'd replace "target shooting games" with "games". "target shooting games" is not a well-defined genre outside of games that explicitly ape the carnival game, and I'd hesitate to call Breakout one. Dropping the namedrop of the putative microgenre is an easy fix. --PresN 22:35, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
civil service rifles war memorial
[edit]Ravenpuff, this blurb has already run, but i thought i should let you know that, in this search of the phrase "listed-building status" in article space, only 1 out of 451 results uses the hyphen. dying (talk) 09:59, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
angel reese
[edit]
the portrait currently being used in the blurb is, to me, surprisingly long. would the blurb benefit from an image crop? at right is a mock-up of how this image could be cropped, shown at roughly the size it would appear at if displayed on the main page. dying (talk) 00:59, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
- No objection. - Dank (push to talk) 01:12, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
- Sportzeditz, that photo you found looks good. thanks for swapping it in. dying (talk) 09:59, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
ancient egyptian literature
[edit]i removed the reference in the blurb to the great hypostyle hall in karnak because i believe it was made in error. the image was originally uploaded to commons with the hall in karnak mentioned in the description, but the hall was removed from the description in this edit. the caption also does not appear to make sense: the sample of hieroglyphs appears to have been photographed in the british museum, and the mortuary temple does not appear to have been moved from its original location at the theban necropolis. (the great hypostyle hall is in thebes, across the river from the necropolis.) note that the reference currently remains in the corresponding caption in the article.
courtesy pinging A. Parrot, who edited the description at commons. dying (talk) 23:59, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
- You are correct. The original photo source is now a dead link, but I followed it via the Wayback Machine here, and it is a piece of the plaster from Seti's tomb. I will edit the article caption accordingly. A. Parrot (talk) 03:06, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
- thanks, A. Parrot. dying (talk) 22:59, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
- Ravenpuff, i feel that adding "on" in this edit breaks the parallelism in that last sentence, as all of the other items in that list are noun phrases. i recognize that, strictly speaking, the subject of the "Coffin Texts" article isn't exactly media, but neither is the subject of the "Ancient Egyptian architecture" article. fixing the grammar will probably require a more involved edit, though to me, it seems more appropriate to leave the grammar simple in that last sentence than to make it convoluted just to address the possible mos:egg issue with the last two items. dying (talk) 09:59, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
- How about removing both the inserted "on" and "media such as"? - Dank (push to talk) 14:37, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
- oh, interesting solution, Dank! i think that's an improvement over simply dropping the "on". dying (talk) 19:59, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
- Done (since it's coming up in less than 24 hrs). Edits and discussion are welcome. - Dank (push to talk) 00:34, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
- oh, interesting solution, Dank! i think that's an improvement over simply dropping the "on". dying (talk) 19:59, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
- How about removing both the inserted "on" and "media such as"? - Dank (push to talk) 14:37, 28 January 2024 (UTC)