Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/November 2023

Only TFA schedulers should make changes to the table immediately below. But please feel free to note any concerns, queries or thoughts below it. Thanks.

Date	Article	FAC nominator	Promoted	FTopic?	Rerun?	Request?	Date?	Blurb
1	Asimov's Science Fiction	Mike Christie	2023					Y
2	44th Chess Olympiad	Kiril Simeonovski	2023					Y
3	Murasaki Shikibu	Victoriaearle	2011		2011	Y	Y	Y
4	Dark Archives	Vaticidalprophet	2023					Y
5	Logic	Phlsph7	2023					Y
6	Rodrigues night heron	FunkMonk	2023					Y
7	1899 Kentucky gubernatorial election	Acdixon	2010				Y	Y
8	Smoking on My Ex Pack	Your Power	2023					Y
9	Titanis	Augustios Paleo	2023					Y
10	Radoje Pajović	Peacemaker67	2023					Y
11	Leonardo DiCaprio	FrB.TG	2023	FT			Y	Y
12	Tunic (video game)	PresN	2023					DanY
13	Fuzuli (poet)	Golden	2023			Y	N	Y
14	90377 Sedna	Kheider & Serendipodous	2010		2010	Y	Y	Y
15	Jessie Murray	SchroCat	2023					Y
16	Interstate 40 in Tennessee	Bneu2013	2023					Y
17	Australiformis	Mattximus	2023					Jim Y
18	Alan Shepard	Hawkeye7 & JustinTime55	2017			Y	Y	Y
19	To Be Loved (Adele song)	MaranoFan	2022			Y	Y	Y
20	Quine–Putnam indispensability argument	Shapeyness	2023					Y
21	Sarcophagus of Eshmunazar II	Elias Ziade	2023					Y
22	Assassination of John F. Kennedy	HAL333	2023					Y
23	Frozen II	Wingwatchers	2022			Y	Y	Y
24	Ormond Beatty	PCN02WPS	2023					Y
25	Micronations and the Search for Sovereignty	LunaEatsTuna	2023					Y
26	Angeline Quinto	Pseud 14	2023			Y	Y	Y
27	Art Deco architecture of New York City	David Fuchs	2023					Y
28	Ulf Merbold	Kusma	2022					Y
29	Revolutionary Girl Utena	Morgan695	2023					Y
30	British logistics in the Siegfried Line campaign	Hawkeye7	2023					Y

Leonardo DiCaprio

I see that he has been listed for 17 November. Would it be possible to move the article up to 11 November, which would be his 49th birthday? I have created a blurb here. Feel free to change it any way you want. FrB.TG (talk) 17:15, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi FrB.TG. 11 November is the anniversary of the end of the First World War, hence the war memorial article. That said, I see the logic of the DiCaprio article going there, so if you like I could start a discussion at TFAR and see what the community thinks. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:23, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FrB.TG: a rethink, I'll just do it. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:29, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

questions about blurbs

for a trial period, i plan to ask questions about tfa blurbs mostly on the monthly tfa archive talk pages instead of on fac nominator talk pages. i would appreciate any feedback on whether this is an improvement or not. dying (talk) 21:59, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi dying, some initial feedback. I like the new system. Your copy edits and notes are excellent. The two weeks lead time gives time for the TFA and/or FAC nominator to respond. And if they haven't after two or three days, for me to do so. And time for a bit of back and forth to thrash out anything not straight forward. I feel that Rodrigues night heron is a good example of this leaving a happy nominator and coordinator - as well as an improved blurb - which would probably not have been the case previously. And it is an open and timely process subject to input from any editor who cares to comment - and so thoroughly Wikipedian.

A couple of comments:

Do you follow the discussions once you have posted your comments, or should I ping you if I want your attention or would like a response?
Would it be possible to have a separate level two section for each blurb, rather that group all of them under "questions about blurbs"?
Anything you would like to input on how this seems to be going from your perspective?
I was weighing the benefits of putting a small tick "Y" in the title of a section when I considered it to be "closed". Obviously, any editor could still comment on any blurb, and you could remove the tick if you disagreed with me. But it would help me to keep track of what I still need to be checking for additional comments and where it had been agreed that your comments had been fully addressed. Your thoughts?
@Dank and Wehwalt: any thoughts from you?

Gog the Mild (talk) 21:38, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to be sure that the FAC nominator is aware of any discussion. Perhaps they could be pinged. Wehwalt (talk) 22:47, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

dying believes that the nominator is pinged. Let us test that:

Blah, blah, blah. Does this ping you? Gog the Mild (talk) 23:09, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It did.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:51, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I'm planning on amending my standard notification that is left on FAC nominator's page to "This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for X December 2023. Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to amend the draft blurb, which can be found at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/December 2023, or to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/December 2023. Please keep an eye on that page, as comments regarding the draft blurb may be left there by user:dying, who assists the coordinators by making suggestions on the blurbs, or by others. I also suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from two days before it appears on the Main Page. Thanks and congratulations on your work!"—Wehwalt (talk) 22:51, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A sound thought. I shall shamelessly steal that. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:02, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Everything seems to be running smoothly so far, both in October and November. I'll take another look in December. - Dank (push to talk) 22:47, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the feedback, Gog!

yes, i follow the discussions. when i posted to user talk pages, i think i generally responded within a day or two, and i will try to continue to do so here. i admittedly needed to pull back from tfa for a few days recently as i was feeling burnt out from the temporary workload increase, but i should be able to return to the open issues below shortly. in any case, feel free to ping me whenever you wish, especially if it looks like i may have forgotten to respond to something.
i think using level two sections for each blurb is a good idea, and have started doing so. i haven't changed the levels for the previous posts, just in case anyone has subscribed to the overarching level two section to keep track of comments for any specific blurb, but i won't mind if you changed them.
i am also liking the new format. i had generally felt guilty about posting to user talk pages regarding these issues because i was worried that the messages might be taken as unwarranted criticism, especially if a nominator had no hand in drafting the blurb. i think having the messages in a centralized location makes it more clear that we are just trying to improve the blurbs, rather than trying to point fingers at anyone. (this is also why i use the link text "nominator" for the pings.) i believe centralizing these discussions may also put less pressure on fac nominators who do not wish to respond or deal with the blurb, as the comments are no longer directed specifically at them. in addition, i had previously felt that i had the implicit responsibility of bring up serious unresolved issues at wp:errors, and am glad that this seems to be no longer the case, since i am now assuming that a tfa coordinator will address any issues that need to be addressed.
adding a small tick to help keep track of things is fine by me. i can't imagine a situation where i'd remove a tick, but if i ever end up having a follow-up question, i'd probably add it below the tick, to make it more clear that i had an additional concern.

No, no; I am an old fart with concentration issues. If you add a comment to a section I have ticked, please remove the tick, you will be doing me a favour. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:09, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

oh, i see what you mean now! for some reason, i had misunderstood the location of the ticks, thinking that you meant that you would add them in a comment, as is often done at wp:errors, even though your description was perfectly clear. in that case, if there's a tick for a section that i'm about to add a comment to, i'll remove it. thanks for letting me know!

by the way, whenever i've promoted sets at dyk, i've generally adopted the practice of striking the section heading if i feel that the issues i've raised for a specific hook have been resolved. see, for example, here. (it's not my idea; i think i adopted it from RoySmith.) i thought i might offer it as another option in case you'd find it useful. dying (talk) 23:59, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd hate to think that how I do things at DYK is being held up anywhere as an example of best practice for anything :-) RoySmith (talk) 02:57, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Perish the thought. We at TFA can surely find our own, novel, ways of fouling things up. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:16, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gog, i just wanted to let you know that i think i will refrain from removing ticks when i am adding comments to a section that has already been resolved and i don't think it is necessary to flag the additional comments for your attention. this way, it will hopefully be more clear that i also consider the issues resolved. for example, with this edit, i am also adding comments to the "smoking on my ex pack" section below, but i am not removing the tick because i have no issues with the current blurb. if you'd prefer that i continue to remove the tick in such cases, please let me know. thanks! dying (talk) 05:59, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

dying (talk) 22:59, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That makes perfect sense to me. The tick is to indicate "no further attention needed", so I agree with you. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:43, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

asimov's science fiction Y

would it be appropriate to replace "science fiction magazine" in the blurb with "science fiction magazine", to conform with mos:specificlink? previous similar blurbs have used the more specific link, as seen here, here, and here. the article lead also links to the more specific article, but from a later instance of "science fiction magazine". dying (talk) 21:59, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:10, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi dying, does the template you use automatically ping the nominator? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:10, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gog, i believe so. i'm simply linking to the user pages of fac nominators while signing my comments. there's nothing really special about the code. {{hlist}} just makes it look nice. dying (talk) 19:59, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good. Thanks. Just checking. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:17, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

44th chess olympiad Y

i had three questions about this blurb.

i was surprised to learn that, although the blurb mentions that the event was organized in chennai, the matches actually took place in mahabalipuram, a town roughly 60 km (40 mi) from the center of chennai. admittedly, to me, this feels a bit like saying that an event is being held in london when it is actually in royal tunbridge wells, or that it is in new york city when it is actually in stamford. i know that some english dialects are rather tolerant of what "in $x$ " can mean when $x$ is a populous city, so i ordinarily wouldn't consider this problematic. however, in this case, there is a four points by sheraton hotel in chennai proper, so the phrase "the Four Points by Sheraton" ends up being an ambiguous description at best.
would it be helpful to replace "in Chennai" with "in Mahabalipuram near Chennai"? i do recognize that the opening and closing ceremonies were actually held in chennai, though the blurb acknowledges that the main location was the convention centre where the matches were held.

Mahabalipuram is a part of Chennai. It is in the Chennai metropolitan area. Indian cities sprawl. I have added an "at Mahabalipuram" to dismabiguate the Sheratons which seems sufficient. What do you think? Gog the Mild (talk) 21:49, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

oh, excellent solution, better than what i had suggested. thanks, Gog. dying (talk) 02:59, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

i must admit that, although i am familiar with the sheraton brand, i don't think i knew what the four points by sheraton brand was used for until i looked it up after reading the blurb. (from the context of the blurb, i think i had guessed that it referred to some kind of cultural or commercial centre.) would it be appropriate to reword the blurb so that main page readers who are as clueless as i am wouldn't have to guess what the brand stands for?
i am not sure how best to do this, as marriott appears to be marketing the mahabalipuram location as a "Resort & Convention Center", which seems a bit clumsy for the main page. offhand, i might suggest replacing "the convention centre at the Four Points by Sheraton" with "the convention centre at the Four Points by Sheraton resort", or simply "the Four Points by Sheraton convention centre".

Excellent idea, done. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:41, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

the text "performance rating" is currently linked to the "Performance rating" section of the "Elo rating system" article. would the "performance rating (chess)" article be a more useful target?

Done. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:13, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

dying (talk) 21:59, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

murasaki shikibu Y

i had four questions about this blurb.

i recognize that information regarding the timing of events in murasaki's life is rather scarce, so am not adverse to the general handwaving of dates in the blurb. however, i was rather surprised at how the blurb appears to very specifically state that murasaki left the court "[a]fter five or six years", as i haven't found any mention of this in the article body. would it be more appropriate to replace "five or six" with "a few" or something similar, to avoid being so specific about something that does not appear to be explictly sourced in the article?

Another good point. Changed to 'several'. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:35, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article tells us that Michinaga assumed power c. 995. Four years later he sent his 12 year old daughter to the imperial harem. He brought Murasaki to court about five years later. The article says, "When Emperor Ichijō died in 1011, Shōshi retired from the Imperial Palace to live in a Fujiwara mansion in Biwa, most likely accompanied by Murasaki ..." The five to six years seems correct. I can pull out sources to confirm but am ill at the moment and don't know when I can get to it. Victoria (tk) 23:27, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dying? Gog the Mild (talk) 23:46, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria, if you are certain enough of the timeline to wish to keep it in the blurb, i have no issues with it. i had only brought it up because i couldn't confirm it myself from the article. i had noticed that the article stated that michinaga brought murasaki to court "[a]bout five years" after he sent shōshi to the harem, but had discounted this statement when determining how long murasaki was at court because it was not clear to me how uncertain sources are about this five-year interval. i could be missing something, but here was what i could determine from the article.

the article notes that shōshi was between 16 and 19 at the time murasaki arrived in court. the article on shōshi mentions that she was born in 988, so murasaki could have arrived anywhere between 1004 and 1008. note that i am ignoring the court diary entry from 1007 because it does not appear to be clear if the entry actually referred to her. (by the way, the possible personal name mentioned in the lead is different from that mentioned in the body, though i don't know if this is due to the different pronunciations of most kanji.)
the article mentions that shōshi went to biwa after the emperor died in 1011, but also appears to be uncertain if murasaki joined her at the time, or only by 1013.

with this information, i had figured that the shortest possible time murasaki spent in court could be around three years (from late 1008 to late 1011, as the emperor died in july), and the longest could be around ten years (from early 1004 to late 1013). this is why i was surprised that the blurb had been so specific about the number of years murasaki was in court. dying (talk) 02:59, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bowring, Richard. The Diary of Lady Murasaki, ISBN 978-0-14-043376-4 Parameter error in {{ISBN}}: checksum says on p. xxxv "When Murasaki arrived at court is not known. We know from her diary that she entered on 'the 29th of the 12th month' but we do not know whether this refers to 1005 or 1006." On p. he says xxxvii, "Emperor Ichijo died on kanko 8. On the 16th of the 10 month of that same year Shoshi moved into the Biwa mansion, and Murasaki resumably went with her." That's what we know. If you want me to swap references before the TFA I will, but I think the material in the article is inline with the sources. As for the blurb - once again, I did not nominate the article and I did not support. I'm fine if you want to rewrite, as long as the rewriting lands withing the spans laid out above. We have her diary and we know she wasn't at court after Shochi had to leave - for obvious reasons. Victoria (tk) 03:59, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

as the blurb mentions both the tale of genji and the diary of lady murasaki, i feel that the noun phrase "[h]er work" may be ambiguous: it could refer to either genji, the diary, or both. i'm not too worried about the first instance of "[h]er work". regarding the second instance, the article suggests to me that it refers only to genji, even though the blurb itself does not appear to make that clear. i'm actually not that certain about the third instance: the article suggests to me that it was meant to refer to genji, even though it also says that "what is known about her and her experiences at court comes from the diary". would it be better to replace the second and third instances of the phrase with wording that makes it more clear what is being referred to?
i am uncertain as to the utility of including the clause "Her work was translated in the early 20th century" in the blurb. on the assumption that "Her work" refers to genji, it seems strange to state this, only to immediately follow it with another clause stating the same thing but with more detail. would it be better to simply replace the whole sentence with "A six-volume English translation of Genji was completed in 1933."?

Hi Dying The first instance applies to both the diary & genji; second instance applies to both the diary & genji; third instance applies to the diary & genji Victoria (tk) 23:27, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For both of the above I took "work" to be a synonym of 'output' or 'oeuvre'. It may be easiest to tweak such uses of "work" to a clearer word or phrase. Or change to the plural: 'works'. Or am I being too simplistic? Gog the Mild (talk) 22:35, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

She was a writer; the literature she wrote is often referred to as work or works. First instance applies to both the diary & genji; second instance applies to both the diary & genji; third instance has been reworked. Victoria (tk) 23:27, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

oh, that rewording works well. thanks, Victoria. dying (talk) 02:59, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

the fact that the ~~1993~~ 1933 translation was six volumes long does not seem to be sourced in the featured article. should it be?

Switching to my FAC coordinator role, I would consider this akin to a "the sky is blue" issue. So it may be that this is a deliberate omission at FAC. Either way, I am not too fussed. That said, I would rather have things in FAs referenced than not, so if someone would care to add a cite that would be a nice extra. Dying, nice spot. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:35, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

dying (talk) 21:59, 19 October 2023 (UTC) [copyedited. dying (talk) 02:59, 20 October 2023 (UTC)][reply]

We don't need it; I've snipped it out. Victoria (tk) 23:27, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

that works. (by the way, i think you also meant to snip out the extra "and".) thanks, Victoria.

also, Gog, i just wanted to let you know for future reference that, because wp:errors generally considers it an error if a statement made on the main page is not sourced in an article linked in bold, whenever i notice this, i might bring it up, but will let others decide if it is something that should be addressed. dying (talk) 02:59, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good. I am pleased that someone is checking that sort of thing. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:16, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

i'm not sure if i was being too opaque when mentioning "the extra 'and'" above, but thought i might bring it up again because i am fairly certain it is an error. right now, the blurb states that "The Tale of Genji and was translated into English the early 20th century" [underline added]. funnily enough, i only realized while typing up this comment that it seems that an "in" was inadvertently removed from before "the early 20th century" as well. to be more clear, here is my suggested edit.

−
''The Tale of Genji'' ~~and~~ was translated into English the early 20th century;
+
''The Tale of Genji'' was translated into English in the early 20th century;

apologies for not having been more clear earlier. dying (talk) 22:59, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Adding an additional comment to document it: in my view if the person/s who nominate an article for TFA are unable to access the sources, then the article shouldn't be nominated. I do have the sources, but this has already run once & my life in 2023 is far from what it was when the article was written & featured for TFA. Because of health issues, it's very difficult for me to get here & be responsive; I have a strict rule about not editing when I'm not feeling well. In other words, requiring quick responses or requiring that I stand by & tend on a specific day is no longer something I'm able to do. For this reason I decided to stop submitting to FAC & subsequently stopped writing. There is a glaring deficiency at the top of this article & if it becomes an issue during TFA (which I fully expect it will), I'll be upset. I'm not in a position to fight with other Wikipedians about specific preferences these days. But I'm pround of the work that went into this article & the result; it would have been best to let it sit quietly in the dusty back corners. Just saying. Victoria (tk) 23:45, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am inclined to agree with your sentiment Victoria; do you feel the same about your other, so far unTFAed, FA? I very much agree with "if the person/s who nominate an article for TFA are unable to access the sources, then the article shouldn't be nominated." But for good or ill the community has decided that is not how TFA nomination should work. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:25, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see Annunciation (Memling) run. It's been nominated at TFAR more than once for a December TFA & opposed. The opposer believes it can only run on the exact date of the putative event, whereas I don't mind when it goes and think it would be nice in December. I did give up the TFA date this year for Jim Lovell's birthday, which I don't regret. Ezra Pound is problematic on a number of levels & so has never been scheduled. I can't vouch for it for TFA because Sarah\SlimVirgin rewrote it completely some months before she died.

I do apologize about the whinging. All of the work I've brought to FA has been tended but I realized some years ago that there's a hard limit to how much I can tend (another reason I stopped writing & nominating at FAC). Victoria (tk) 23:10, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't been whinging. Or if you have, I didn't notice. FAC 'is stressful, It's been a while since I nominated there myself. If I had realised how much work tending FAs is, I would have selected the ones I nominated more carefully. It was Annunciation (Memling) I especially had in mind. I schedule the second month of each quarter, so could more or less guarantee to run it in, say, February. Or I could have a word with the December coordinator to see if it could be run on any date in December, or be the first reserve for the month. Do either of these appeal? Gog the Mild (talk) 23:26, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I mulled it over and went on an archeological dig. Based on this and the response when it went to TFAR a few years ago (sorry, have searched & searched and can't find that entry), my sense is that there will be opposition to any date other than March. But it's worth trying for December or February. I wouldn't be opposed to either of those dates. RE tending, yes, it's more work than any of realize. Having a co-nominator helps. Victoria (tk) 16:08, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I shall keep it under my control then. I have tentatively scheduled it for 13 February. If there a blurb for it, could you post it here. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:32, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

dark archives

i had two questions about this blurb.

does tfa have any guidelines regarding the use of artificial backgrounds in images? the use of the gradient in the image featured in this blurb admittedly seemed rather unusual to me. i ask because i brought up at wt:dyk an issue with another prospective image for the main page with a clearly fake background, and was told that this sort of photo editing may violate wp:imgcontent.
to be clear, i think it is less certain whether this image violates wp:imgcontent, and the background had already been present in the source photo so it likely was not added by any wikipedia editors, but i thought it would be useful to raise the issue in case it does violate any tfa guidelines. if the image should be replaced, i found two possible candidate images, at right, of what appears to be the same book, taken from the same source.
the article body asserts that librarians, archivists, and others were interviewed for the book, but i cannot tell from the article alone whether these interviews were presented as such in the book, or whether the information obtained was generally incorporated into the book as normal prose. the blurb uses present tense with the verb "interviews", which suggests to me that many of these interviews are presented as such in the book, following the guidelines on the use of present tense described at mos:tense and mos:blptense. if this is not the case, would it be more appropriate to split that sentence in the blurb and reword the statement about the interviews to use past tense?

dying (talk) 21:59, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Where are we drawing the line re. interviews? The book quotes quite extensively, and reports the Needham conversation in particular fairly directly, but it doesn't use a traditional journalist-interview-writing structure, no. (Reading the discussion about IMGCONTENT, I don't see this as a violation.) Vaticidalprophet 01:05, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vaticidalprophet, i don't think there's really a hard line drawn regarding what would constitute an interview. if you think that it is accurate to state that rosenbloom "interviews librarians, archivists, collectors, and experts on the topic" in the book, then that is good enough for me. i only brought up the point in case rosenbloom had interviewed these people for the book, but not necessarily in the book. the implication of using the present tense form "interviews" rather than "interviewed" is something i only learned fairly recently, so i just wanted to make sure that it was taken into account when the blurb was drafted, as i could not confirm, from the article body alone, that rosenbloom interviews them in the book. dying (talk) 07:59, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

logic Y

i had two questions about this blurb.

to avoid a mos:egg issue, would it be appropriate to either change the link target in "correct reasoning" from the "logical reasoning" article to the "reason" article so that the phrase becomes "correct reasoning", or alternatively move "correct" into the link text so that the phrase becomes "correct reasoning"? there is an instance of the latter version of the phrase in the article body.
i noticed that the example deductive argument was worded somewhat colloquially, apparently violating mos:contraction, but i wasn't sure if this was deliberate. should this style be kept? if not, i had been thinking of replacing the argument with "today is Sunday; if today is Sunday then I do not have to work today; therefore I do not have to work today" to more closely follow the " $p$ ; if $p$ then $q$ ; therefore $q$ " construction of modus ponens. note that doing so would make the blurb exceed the character limit. this can be addressed by replacing "for instance," with "like", which would also improve the parallelism between the three sentences describing the three types of logical arguments.

dying (talk) 21:59, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Dying: Thanks for the comments. A link to the article Reason would be acceptable but I think the article Logical reasoning is more relevant. Your suggestion of using as a wikilink correct reasoning is probably the best alternative. I agree with your suggestion about the example: the colloquial style is not required and having it more closely resemble modus ponens makes it easier for the reader to grasp. I don't see a problem with replacing "for instance" with "like". Phlsph7 (talk) 08:03, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Or, if there are the three spare characters, 'such as', so the phrase will not ring so awkwardly in non-North American ears? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:14, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One alternative would be to remove the word "correct" from the expression "standards of correct reasoning" since the term "standards" already implies correctness. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:54, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I implemented the suggestions. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:32, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

rodrigues night heron Y

i had two questions about this blurb.

could someone please add a mention of the country mauritius to one of the first few sentences of the blurb? i completely forgot to do so when i was copyediting.
i am worried about the use of the word "comparatively" in the blurb, because it is unclear to me what the rodrigues night heron is being compared to. should this be reworded to make the comparison more clear? alternatively, it could also be reworded to avoid making a comparison in the first place. i know that similar wording has been raised as problematic at wp:errors before, as seen in this error report.
i tried rewording the passage myself, but then realized that it wasn't clear to me if, when the article body compares the rodrigues night heron with the mauritius night heron in the first sentence of the "Description" section, the comparison was only referring to the robustness of the legs. also, i am not sure if a rewording would require additional space, but i thought "latter part of the 19th century" could probably be safely replaced with "late 19th century" if needed.

dying (talk) 21:59, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to have a look at these issues tomorrow. I wonder why a link is needed for Mauritius, though? It wasn't a country at the time, and Rodrigues wasn't part of it then. FunkMonk (talk) 00:26, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dying, what are you proposing to link Mauritius to and why? It does not feature at all in the article. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:01, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FunkMonk and Gog, i believe we sometimes get reports at wp:errors if (1) the featured subject is largely associated with one location, (2) the blurb does not mention a country (extant or not) to which the location (or a part of it) belongs, and (3) there isn't enough context for a reasonable main page reader to guess approximately where the location is. see, for example, the error reports here and here. for reference, Dank first taught me about this issue here and here.

when the featured subject is an extinct taxon, i don't think the countries mentioned have to have existed at the time the taxon was extant. see, for example, the upcoming blurb for titanis, which mentions the u.s. (as well as the states of florida, california, and texas), even though the taxon has been extinct for over a million years.

that being said, i can understand the reluctance to link to mauritius if it isn't even mentioned in the article. it seems like the article uses the phrase "in the Indian Ocean" instead to hint to readers roughly where the species was located. would it be more appropriate to mention that in the blurb, instead of mauritius? in any case, if we don't mention a country this time and end up getting an error report about it, we can always link to this discussion and state that there was a consensus to leave it out this time. dying (talk) 07:59, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd assume linking Rodigues is enough for that purpose? It's not like no location is mentioned, and it's more specific than Indian Ocean anyway. Mascarene is also linked. FunkMonk (talk) 10:20, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dying, I am really struggling to see this one, so you may need to both be patient and explain things to me in simple terms. The location is given twice in the opening sentence, as Funk says, both linked - Mascarene Islands and Rodrigues Island. Both linked articles include maps to further assist in location. If they need to click the link, then their point is moot as they can already do that. I doubt very much that many readers who do not know where either the Mascarene Islands or Rodrigues Island are will be immediately familiar with Mauritius. IMO they are more likely to confuse it with Mauritania, and much more likely to have no clue. I am vehemently against including information in blurbs which does not feature at all in the FA they are supposedly summarising; this is not what I understand TFA to be about. Lastly, this is Wikipedia, an editor can be found who will complain about anything. That does not mean that any attention should be paid to them, it does not even necessarily mean that they have a valid point. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:46, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gog, i think the current practice at wp:errors is that, if someone complains that a country isn't mentioned in a tfa blurb, and the complaint seems reasonable, an administrator will generally add it to the blurb. the practice seems to ignore whether or not the blurb includes links to more specific locations. for example, the blurb referenced in the first error report i linked had already mentioned and linked "Byblos", and the blurb referenced in the second error report had already mentioned and linked "Atlantic City, New Jersey", amongst other locations. also, i don't think whether the country is mentioned in the featured article is a factor, but i admittedly haven't been keeping track.

it is interesting that the line seems to be drawn at the mention of a country. if someone complains that they don't know where a country is, then we apparently consider that their fault, not wikipedia's. in addition, the practice ignores the fact that there are countries that may be confused by many anglophone readers, such as the example of mauritius and mauritania that you mention. this issue may be further exacerbated by the practice of not linking extant countries on the main page. (i tried to mitigate this effect by adding "in the Indian Ocean" when i removed the link to the seychelles here.)

that all being said, as tfa coordinator, you are free to set any standard you like, and i will try to follow it. my current practice follows Dank's advice on how to avoid error reports on the issue, but if you disagree with it, i can follow your standard for the months you schedule, and Dank's standard for the months he schedules.

to be clear, i actually have no personal preference on the issue. if i see a location linked in a blurb and don't know where in the world it is, i will generally consider it my own fault and think it is my responsibility to click on the link and figure it out myself. there may be some exceptions, like if a hypothetical blurb mentions boston but neglects to state that it is referring to the one in england. with this blurb though, i'm fine with leaving it as is. as i mentioned, if we get an error report about it, we can always link to this discussion to note that the decision to not mention a country was deliberate. dying (talk) 22:59, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed to "late 19th century", but I'm not sure much can be done with the rest. The source simply says "Cowles (1987) re-examined the skeletal remains and concluded that the wings were not particularly short, but the legs had become longer and more robust, characteristics applicable to a more terrestrial species. The beak was also comparatively large", and this presumably refers to comparison with other night herons in general, not only the Mauritius one. FunkMonk (talk) 21:48, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Late 19th century" and "latter part of the 19th century" are different time spans. FunkMonk, which of them actually applies? Don't worry about character count. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:23, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, good point, seems I didn't read my own text properly. Since the first bones were found in 1865 (and described in 1873), I don't think that can count as "late", but "latter part" fits, no? FunkMonk (talk) 22:35, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I thought we needed to keep it, but you know the sources better than me. Right, it stays; or a similar formulation. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:02, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe, self-reverted now... FunkMonk (talk) 23:06, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gog, i actually didn't realize that; i guess i hadn't really thought about it before. how do the two phrases differ? i'm admittedly asking for my own edification, so that i can avoid mistakenly replacing one phrase for the other in the future. the blurb is short enough as is, so a rewording is no longer needed. dying (talk) 07:59, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I believe "late" would indicate the very end of the 19th century, while "latter part" is anything in its second half. FunkMonk (talk) 10:20, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nicely put, more succinct than what I was going to put while capturing the essence. Dying, that is ii. So, as Funk realises above "Since the first bones were found in 1865 (and described in 1873), I don't think that can count as "late", but "latter part" fits". 'The earlier part' and 'the latter part' of a century between them cover all of it; 'early' and 'late' are vaguer terms which in the context of centuries cover perhaps 15 or 20 years at the start and end of it respectively. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:54, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

oh, wow, i had no idea that the term was sometimes interpreted so restrictively! i ended up digging around and finding sources that appeared to treat the two terms as equivalent, so i will just assume that "late

x

century" is interpreted differently by different people, and will be more careful if i want to substitute one phrase for the other in the future. thanks for the clarification, FunkMonk and Gog! dying (talk) 20:59, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Comparatively": this seems a fair point, and things seem to get a bit hand wavey when pressed on "compared to what?" I don't think we lose any information or clarity by removing it, so I have done so.

Alright. FunkMonk (talk) 22:35, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1899 kentucky gubernatorial election Y

i feel that the statement "The only persons charged in the killing were later pardoned" may be inaccurate. the article body states that sixteen indictments were returned, so i am assuming that at least sixteen people were charged. the article also mentions that caleb powers, james howard, and henry youtsey were pardoned, as well as "former governor Taylor and several others still under indictment". to me, this doesn't suggest that all sixteen people whose indictments had been returned were pardoned; had that been the case, it would have made more sense to state that taylor and all the others still under indictment were pardoned. also, two of those charged were later acquitted, so presumably they weren't pardoned.

the article lead instead states that "three were convicted ... and were eventually pardoned". i think this could be worked into the blurb, though i hesitate to simply replace "charged" with "convicted", as "convicted in the killing" may suggest that those three were considered the actual killers. perhaps "charged in the killing" could be replaced with "convicted in connection with the killing". note that doing this would increase the blurb length to beyond the character limit, which can be addressed by dropping "to office" and replacing "Goebel was shot by an unknown assassin" with "an unknown assassin shot Goebel". dying (talk) 21:59, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nicely picked up. Something has gone wrong there. A you suggest, I have changed it to "The only persons convicted in connection with the killing", which reflects the article. I think that this formulation, and "the assassin's identity remains a mystery" in the same sentence avoids any suggestion that those three were considered the actual killers. Good spot. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:58, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that this was a good catch and a good solution. So much of what happened in this fiasco is very messy and hard to describe succinctly. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 16:52, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

smoking on my ex pack Y

i had four questions about this blurb.

the wording "music for 'sad girls': melancholic music aimed at a female audience" has been troubling me because "melancholic music aimed at a female audience" is sad music for girls, not necessarily music for sad girls. also, surprisingly, the phrase "sad girls" currently doesn't seem to be used anywhere in the article, even though the phrase "sad girl music" is mentioned. i admittedly don't know if "sad girl music" means sad music for girls or music for sad girls; it seems like both interpretations could be valid. would it be better to reword the blurb so that it uses the phrase "sad girl music" instead? below is one possibility.
Before the album's release, SZA was viewed as an R&B artist who made melancholic music aimed at a female audience, or "sad girl music".
note that this rewording also makes it more clear that "sad girl music" is an informal term used to describe the music genre, rather than, for example, a phrase used by a music critic that should be attributed.

Good points. Amended as you suggest.

Elias, to answer your question in this edit summary, the removal of the link was entirely my fault. i often work with just the plain text of a blurb when trying to come up with an appropriate rewording, and neglected to restore the link when i made the proposal above. sorry about that! dying (talk) 05:59, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

i was surprised that the text "stereotyping of her as a Black woman" linked to the "microaggression" article, as i think a lot of stereotyping based on race or gender would not be properly classified as microaggressions. (i am also having trouble confirming that sza considered the acts in question microaggressions herself.) would a rewording such as "which she believed were microaggressions stereotyping her as a Black woman" be more appropriate, assuming that she did view them as microaggressions?
i got the impression from the blurb that the microaggressions had to do with her being labelled as someone who made sad girl music, while the article suggested to me that they were related to her being labelled as an r&b artist. if i'm not misinterpreting things, is this a discrepancy that should be resolved?

I am unsure who created this link, what the alleged microaggressions related to, and whether it is backed by a source. Absent some input by Your Power (please), it seems best to avoid it altogether, so I have unlinked in the blurb. Problem solved?

That was me , @Gog the Mild . Thank you for replying on behalf of me , and apologies I was not able to get to this; priorities still over the place ijbol .anyways, I have linked the phrase to Misogynoir#Music instead. I believe it is apt enough ("why can't we be expansive and not reductive?" vs "Black women have not and remain to have a smaller hold in the music industry and its many genres including ... hip hop, country, and pop music") ‍ ‍ Elias 🌊 ‍ ‍ ^{💬 "Will you call me?"}
_{📝 "Will you hang me out to dry?"} 02:38, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

forgot to ping @Dying. apologies! ‍ ‍ Elias 🌊 ‍ ‍ ^{💬 "Will you call me?"}
_{📝 "Will you hang me out to dry?"} 06:06, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

this seems like a much better link. thanks for providing it! dying (talk) 05:59, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

i am not sure if the person referred to in the blurb as "one lover" of sza was actually ever one of sza's lovers. admittedly, deciphering lyrics is not my forte, though it seems strange to me that sza would refer to one of her lovers as "your favorite rapper". in addition, i found it unusual that sza used the words "I heard", suggesting that the description in question was based on a rumor. if the unnamed subject was actually one of sza's lovers, i would have expected sza to have made the statement based on personal experience, rather than based on rumor. am i not reading the lyrics correctly?

I do not think whether the Lover In question is real or to some degree fictional matters in interpreting the lyrics. NPR and Vulture appear to read the passages literally , although in an ambiguous way , and Spin describes "ex pack" as blind items, meaning there is likely some fiction in it. sza's songs are often confessional as described in the article, but not everything in a confessional song has to be 100% based in reality. re. "it seems strange to me that sza would refer to one of her lovers as 'your favorite rapper'.", almost everyone insulted there is an ex-lover (see NPR's "anti-ex anthem" billing of the song). I hope I have addressed the queries well . ‍ ‍ Elias 🌊 ‍ ‍ ^{💬 "Will you call me?"}
_{📝 "Will you hang me out to dry?"} 02:38, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

after reading your response, i dug a little deeper, and it looks like sources are interpreting "your favorite rapper" to mean drake. although i had been previously worried about a potential blp issue, apparently, both sza and drake have acknowledged that they have dated each other in the past, so i no longer think this is an issue. thanks for the clarification! dying (talk) 05:59, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Dying: No problem . IMO those interpretations shouldnt really be paid any mind in the context of an encyclopedia; folks claiming those shots were aimed at drake arent really anything but the result of the proverbial rumour mill, although of course being listeners they are free to make that choice . Something something plausible deniability. besides, I dont think it makes sense for one to publicly though subtly diss someone only to collab with them many months later .Once again thanks for these comments ! ‍ ‍ Elias 🌊 ‍ ‍ ^{💬 "Will you call me?"}
_{📝 "Will you hang me out to dry?"} 06:27, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

wait, Elias, sza negged drake and it worked? oh, wow. if so, the lyrics make a lot more sense now. dying (talk) 23:59, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I dont even know what that means lmao . But if I were to hazard a guess, not really . Again, she probably wrote the lyric just for fun . But we are getting off-topic . ‍ ‍ Elias 🌊 ‍ ‍ ^{💬 "Will you call me?"}
_{📝 "Will you hang me out to dry?"} 00:38, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

dying (talk) 18:59, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

titanis

i had two questions about this blurb.

the estimated height and weight mentioned in the blurb are said to be based on a 2005 study, but after the article was promoted to featured article status, the article was changed to state that "the 2005 study wasn't able to estimate the body mass", and the estimated values used in the article lead no longer match those in the blurb. should this discrepancy be resolved? unfortunately, i don't have the expertise to know which numbers should be used, and am confused enough that i'm not even sure that the height mentioned in the blurb are actually from the 2005 study. the cited gould and quitmyer source from 2005 mentions the following.
The standing height of the bird is predicted to be 1444 mm (r² = 0.75) based on tarsometarsus [sic] trohclea [sic] width. The distal width of the tibiotarsus predicts a standing height of 1870 mm (r² = 0.87).
to me, the range mentioned in the article lead ("1.4 to 2 meters (4.6 to 6.6 ft)") more closely follows the 2005 study than that mentioned in the blurb ("2 to 2.5 meters (6.6 to 8.2 ft)").
the blurb mentions that the holotype specimen includes part of a right tarsometatarsus, but the article body doesn't seem to mention that the tarsometatarsus was specifically a right tarsometatarsus, only stating that a distal tarsometatarsus was found. is the statement that the fragment is specifically part of a right tarsometatarsus sourced? i couldn't find it mentioned in the cited ray and florida vertebrate fossils sources, so am wondering if "distal" and "dexter" were possibly conflated at one point.

dying (talk) 22:59, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gog, i thought you might like to know that the fac nominator appears to no longer be very active on wikipedia. dying (talk) 05:59, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dying|dying, I don't know if you have noticed, but I have pulled that one, and replaced it with Hove War Memorial for 9 November. Apologies for making such a late change. The AC nominator seemed to be taking their time, I took my eye off it, and two weeks flashed by. Their are some potentially serious sourcing issues and, absent input from its nominator, I didn't, when push came to shove, feel happy enough with it to sign it off for an appearance on the main page. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:28, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

yikes! thanks for letting me know. i did what i could with the blurb in the hour that i had. dying (talk) 23:59, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

leonardo dicaprio Y

would it be helpful to reorder the list of movies so that it is more clear that the list is composed of two sublists?

	his many collaborations with director Martin Scorsese, including The Aviator (2004), The Departed (2006) and The Wolf of Wall Street (2013), as well as Blood Diamond (2006), Inception (2010), Django Unchained (2012), The Revenant (2015) and Once Upon a Time in Hollywood (2019).
→	Blood Diamond (2006), Inception (2010), Django Unchained (2012), The Revenant (2015) and Once Upon a Time in Hollywood (2019), as well as his many collaborations with director Martin Scorsese, including The Aviator (2004), The Departed (2006) and The Wolf of Wall Street (2013).

i hesitated to do this unilaterally because i wasn't sure if the order was intentional to emphasize certain movies. dying (talk) 22:59, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it would. Feel free to change. :) FrB.TG (talk) 00:31, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

done. thanks, FrB.TG! dying (talk) 01:59, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

tunic Y

i had three points i wanted to raise about this blurb.

since the caption already mentions gdc 2023, i thought i might suggest a tighter crop for the image, as the podium doesn't really provide any additional context. (the sticker is an interesting easter egg, though.)
i don't know if my experience with video games is outdated, but when i read the statement in the blurb that there was a "potential for players to get stuck", i had thought that this meant that the game designer had not taken into account a possible sequence of events that would lead to the game being unwinnable. as a result, i was surprised to learn from the article that reviewers had complained about how players could get stuck due to "the obscure and challenging nature of the puzzles", which is simply a difficult situation, rather than an impossible one.
to avoid such a misinterpretation, would it be appropriate to add something like "on a difficult puzzle" after "to get stuck"? note that doing this would make the blurb exceed the character limit. i think this can be resolved by replacing "The game was released" with "It was released", and "followed by ports for" with "and for". the link to the "porting" article would be lost, but i believe it often isn't linked in video game blurbs anyway.
i just wanted to note that i deliberately didn't add a "(pictured)" to this blurb, as it is already quite information dense and i didn't really feel comfortable unilaterally rewording it to insert the parenthetical. offhand, though, it seems possible to also squeeze in the "(pictured)" if "manual that offers clues" was replaced with "manual with clues", and "March 2022" with "March" (since 2022 is already mentioned in the first sentence).

dying (talk) 23:59, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

the main issue above has been addressed by this edit to the blurb. thanks, PresN! dying (talk) 05:59, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

fuzuli Y

i had two questions about this blurb.

is "ghazals" being used as a loanword, or a foreign word? if the former, then i think the {{transliteration}} template doesn't need to be used, and the term doesn't need to be in italics: "his ghazals (love poems)". if the latter, then i assume that the transliteration of the plural form of the word in azerbaijani (or another relevant language) is not "ghazals", and single quotation marks should be used with "love poems" to conform with mos:single as the phrase appears to be a simple gloss: "his $x$ ('love poems')", where " $x$ " is the relevant transliterated plural form.
should the phrase "intense expression of feelings" either be attributed or reworded? (Per the MoS on quotations: "[t]he source must be named '''in article text''' if the quotation is an opinion". Emphasis in original. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:14, 29 October 2023 (UTC))[reply]

dying (talk) 22:59, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think ghazal is a loanword. Could we reword second point as "strong display of emotions"? — Golden ^talk 16:55, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wiktionary has "ghazals" as an English word. The quote rephrased as suggested. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:39, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

i have reformatted the blurb on the assumption that "ghazals" is an english loanword rather than a foreign word. thanks, Golden and Gog! dying (talk) 20:59, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

90377 sedna

i had three questions about this blurb.

should "asteroid number" be "minor-planet number" instead? i admittedly haven't been keeping up with the changing definitions of terms in astronomy, but this type of number appears to be discussed at the "minor-planet designation" article. also, the "asteroid" article appears to define asteroids as minor planets with orbits in the inner solar system, and sedna's orbit clearly lies outside of it. i am not certain if "minor-planet number" or "minor planet number" is more appropriate. i elected to use the hyphen because the articles covering the list of minor planets, such as this one, seem to tend to use it.
is there a source for the statement that sedna is usually more distant from the sun than any other known dwarf planet candidate? 2014 fe₇₂ appears to be a possible dwarf planet, and has an aphelion greater than 3000 au, more than three times as large as the one estimated for sedna.
i am having trouble understanding what the statement "It may be located within the same open cluster where the Sun was born." is supposed to mean. i assume that the sun is no longer considered a member of its birth cluster. if the cluster no longer exists, then obviously sedna cannot be located in the cluster. if the cluster still exists, then i believe it must be at least a few light years away (since there are no stars within four light years of the sun), meaning that sedna would be nowhere near the cluster. (a light-year is about 63241 au.) if my assumption is wrong, and the sun is still a member of its birth cluster, then the statement doesn't really mean anything, as pretty much everything in the solar system would be located in the sun's birth cluster. should this statement be reworded, or possibly removed?

I think "be located" should read 'have originated'. Gog the Mild (talk) 00:14, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

dying (talk) 23:59, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

These are all good points and I have edited the blurb to reflect these issues. -- Kheider (talk) 11:53, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for those edits, Kheider! i think the open cluster statement now makes more sense. admittedly, it still seems strange to me that we are saying that sedna was formed in the sun's birth cluster, as i assume that most of the (non-solar) mass of the solar system was originally part of the protoplanetary disk surrounding the sun when it was still a part of its birth cluster. what seems to be notable is that some astronomers think sedna was not originally a part of this protoplanetary disk, rather than that sedna was originally formed in the same open cluster. if so, would the rewrite below be an improvement?

	It may have formed within the same open cluster where the Sun was born as some astronomers suggest that Sedna is a celestial body captured by the Sun from another star system.
→	Some astronomers suggest that Sedna is a celestial body captured by the Sun from another star system within the same open cluster where the Sun was born.

by the way, i also wanted to let you know that "km" is almost never linked on the main page, and "billion" links to a redirect, contrary to the practice described at wp:mpnoredirect. may i suggest replacing the template with the code "937 AU (140 [[1,000,000,000|billion]] km)" instead? dying (talk) 05:59, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:00, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All (including Gog, Kheider and Dying): TFA coords were pinged for a relatively minor issue at WP:ERRORS and I responded as best I could ... suggestions welcome. FWIW, I rarely respond to ERRORS reports like this one in the second month of each quarter, I generally need some time off after the first month of the quarter. - Dank (push to talk) 04:38, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

alan shepard Y

i had six questions about this blurb.

could someone please add a non-breaking space (" ") before the en dash in the lifespan parenthetical? i somehow missed it when i was performing my copyedit.
Already there. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:25, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
in the u.s., does one become a naval aviator when one begins flight training, when one is awarded an aviator badge, or at some other point in one's career? the blurb and article lead both state that shepard became a naval aviator in 1946, while the article body notes that he began flight training in 1946, and appears to have been awarded the badge in 1947 at the earliest.
When you are awarded your wings. Corrected the lead to "1947". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:25, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
there may be a similar issue with when he became a test pilot. the blurb and article lead both state that shepard became a test pilot in 1950, while the article seems to only mention that this was when he was selected to attend the naval test pilot school. this source from the u.s. naval academy asserts that he graduated from the test pilot school in 1951.
Correct. He was part of class five, which graduated in January 1951. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:25, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
the blurb and article lead both state that shepard was chief of the astronaut office until he retired on "August 1, 1974", while the article body states that he retired on "July 31, 1974", and also doesn't seem to mention that he remained chief until he retired. should this discrepancy be resolved? also, the infobox mentions the august date as his date of retirement, but says nothing about when he left the office. interestingly, the "Chief of the Astronaut Office" article states that he resigned from the office on "January 14, 1974".
Unfortunately, that article has no sources. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:25, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
yeah, Hawkeye7, it's unfortunate that the statement is unsourced.
i looked around to try to see if there was any truth to this, and found this source from nasa stating that "[i]n January 1974, [John Young] was selected to be Chief of the Astronaut Office", this source from upi reporting that "chief of the astronaut office [is] a post [Young] has held since January 1974", and this source from the new mexico museum of space history that states that "[f]rom January 1974 to May 1987, [Young] was Chief of the Astronaut Office". however, i also found this source from nasa which mentions that "[i]n 1975, Young became the Chief of the Astronaut Office", and this source from the los angeles times that reports that young "was named chief of the astronaut office in 1975 after a year as acting chief".
due to the apparently conflicting sources, i admittedly don't know whether what is currently mentioned in the blurb is accurate, or what to replace it with if it isn't, but i just thought i might flag this issue in case you weren't previously aware. i'll trust your judgement regarding what to do with this information, if anything. dying (talk) 13:59, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I found an authorative source that states that Young officially became Chief of the Astronaut Office on 30 April 1974. Added this to the article and corrected the blurb. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:27, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
oh, impressive find! thanks for addressing this, Hawkeye7. dying (talk) 20:59, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
there appears to be a similar issue with the date shepard was promoted to rear admiral. the blurb and article lead both state that it occurred on "August 25, 1971", while the article body states that it happened on "August 26, 1971". do sources conflict on this issue?
Sort of. These things are an editorial issue, as they take effect at midnight. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:59, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
oh, that makes sense. i think removing the specific dates from the blurb was a good solution. thanks for the clarification. dying (talk) 13:59, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
i had considered changing the link target of the "rear admiral" link to the "Rear admiral (United States)" article, to conform with the blurb's earlier link to the "Naval aviator (United States)" article, and the article lead's link to the "Rear admiral" section of the "Rear admiral (United States)" article. however, the u.s. has two such ranks: rear admiral (sometimes referred to as rear admiral (upper half)), an o-8 (of-7) rank; and rear admiral (lower half), an o-7 (of-6) rank. because the rear admiral (lower half) rank appears to have been established in 1985 (o-7 officers used to be called commodores), i am assuming that shepard was promoted to the o-8 rank. however, the article body notes that shepard's rank was equivalent to that of james mcdivitt, who held the rank of brigadier general, an o-7 (of-6) rank, which makes me wonder if shepard actually retired with the o-7 rank. if the link is changed to target the "Rear admiral (United States)" article, should it specifically target the "Rear admiral (lower half)" section, the "Rear admiral" section, or neither?

dying (talk) 20:59, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I thought about that, but it would be an anachronism. There was no "lower half" back then, and commodore had been abolished in 1949. He wore the uniform and stars of a rear admiral He outranked McDivett - a sore point. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:59, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
oh, thanks for providing the picture! it clearly shows that shepard was promoted to the o-8 rank.
also, now that you mention that shepard outranked mcdivitt, i took a closer look at the statement about mcdivitt's rank in the article, and realized that the phrase "an equivalent rank" wasn't in the article when it was first promoted to featured status. i probably should have looked at the promoted version first to see if the seemingly contradictory statements had been present there before bringing this up. dying (talk) 13:59, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@TFA coordinators I have updated the blurb. Please double check. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:59, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

dying, does this resolve all of the issues you raised? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:51, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
yes, everything looks good. thanks for checking with me. dying (talk) 20:59, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

quine–putnam indispensability argument Y

i am a little surprised at the wording used in this blurb, as it discusses whether or not we should believe in certain abstract objects, which seems more reminiscent of arguments addressing the theories of evolution and intelligent design. was this deliberate? i also felt that the use of "claim" twice in the blurb seemed a little strange, as i believe the word is generally avoided, as per mos:claim. dying (talk) 23:59, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's intentional. In general, in philosophy, there are two ways to argue that something exists. You can argue directly "this thing exists" or you can argue something like "we have good reason to believe this thing exists". The indispensability argument is the second type of argument, it relies on the fact that science gives us good reason to believe in things. Therefore, although it is an argument for abstract objects, the conclusion is usually not stated as "abstract objects exist" but instead as "we ought to beleive in abstract objects" or "we ought rationally to believe in abstract objects" or more jargony "we ought to have ontological commitment to abstract objects". I'm not sure I understand the connection to evolution / ID but hopefully that answer is useful. Shapeyness (talk) 09:26, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On mos:claim, my understanding is that claim should be used cautiously to ensure that the article doesn't cast unfair doubt on what is being said, but it doesn't forbid the word from being used. I don't think the word claim is problematic here, but I'm open to alternative wordings. Shapeyness (talk) 10:09, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi dying, I wanted Shapeyness to have their say, but they are echoing what I had thought. Which is not to say that the blurb is Errors-proof. What do you think? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:55, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

apologies, Shapeyness, my concern about this blurb is admittedly rather minor, and is also rather difficult to put into words. consider the following two hypothetical blurb lead sentences.

The Foote–Thunberg unsurvivability argument claims that we should believe in climate change.
The Foote–Thunberg unsurvivability argument reasons that humans are contributing to a rise in global surface temperature.

to me, the first suggests that the argument is not a strong one, and should be taken with a healthy bit of skepticism, while the second is more neutral on the subject.

i know that the phrase "believe in" is often used colloquially, and that we have a tendency to avoid technical terminology on the main page, which is why i was wondering if that wording was chosen deliberately for the blurb, as the blurb's lead sentence differs from that in the article, which i had thought was fine. i now see that this discussion is what led to a change in wording, and am admittedly struggling to think of a decent alternative that doesn't use the verb "argues". i think the following is the best alternative that i could come up with so far.

The Quine–Putnam indispensability argument reasons that we should assume that abstract mathematical objects such as numbers and sets exist because mathematics is indispensable to science.

i'm not quite sure if my proposed statement has a meaning similar enough to the one it is intended to replace, or if a change along these lines objectively improves the wording anyway, so feel free to leave the blurb unchanged if you think what is there is good enough.

interestingly, i didn't think the second instance of either "claim" or "believe in" in the blurb was similarly problematic. perhaps the use of both in the lead sentence made me feel that the blurb opened with a slight bias. dying (talk) 20:59, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Dying: reasons also works, I've changed the blurb, although I kept the believe wording. We could also go for "The Quine–Putnam indispensability argument reasons that we rationally ought to believe..." if you think it could do with a bit more strengthening? I also removed the other use of claim later on in the blurb. Shapeyness (talk) 22:56, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

oh, that is much better, Shapeyness. as it turns out, i don't think the "believe in" wording is as problematic once the associated "claim" is dropped, so there's probably no need to strengthen the statement any further. thanks for that edit! dying (talk) 22:59, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

sarcophagus of eshmunazar ii Y

current image

original image

alternative view

the image currently used in the blurb is an image that was edited to remove a barrier that was present in the original image. to fill in the areas obstructed by the barrier, it appears that another image with a slightly different view was used. is this sort of photo editing acceptable under the guideline at mos:images?

i am assuming that the image was edited because the original image had more favourable proportions than those present in the one with the alternative view, though personally, i thought the alternative image was fine. (the objects to the left and right of the sarcophagus could be cropped out, but that is not a big issue.) to be clear, i actually thought the photo editing was done well. i just wasn't sure if it was appropriate for wikipedia. dying (talk) 23:59, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an expert, but this process is akin to what digital cameras do in panorama mode, where images from various perspectives are stitched together. The edits not introducing misleading alterations to the content. el.ziade (talkallam) 07:36, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

assassination of john f. kennedy Y

did johnson actually become president upon kennedy's death, or did he only become president after being sworn in? i am admittedly not familiar enough with u.s. law to know if johnson automatically became president when kennedy died, or only after he was sworn in. if it is unclear, perhaps the rewordings "became president after Kennedy's death" or "was then sworn in as president" may be more appropriate. dying (talk) 23:59, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It would seem that you are correct. Barring the input of a US constitutional expert and/or HAL333 I think it would be wise to amend as you suggest. I have done so, and tweaked things a little to make events run in a more obviously chronological order. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:41, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is my understanding that Johnson instantly succeeded Kennedy after his death. The public oath was largely a formality to ensure smooth transition of power. ~ HAL333 23:48, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The current wording fudges this, but I would be happy to change it if you had an authoritative source. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:52, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

frozen ii Y

can someone please confirm that the image currently featured in the blurb does not appear to be a copyright violation? ordinarily, i would expect a commons contributor with the ability to take photos of such quality to have uploaded a decent number of other photos of similar quality, but the original uploader of the uncropped image on commons appears to have only uploaded a few photos to commons, and the only other one still on commons is a cropped version of another file already on commons. admittedly, i might currently be a bit more skeptical than i usually am about photo uploads: an image recently featured at tfa was deleted for being a likely copyright violation. dying (talk) 23:59, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That image has been there for a decade. And a quick Google image search indicates no copyright violation. Wingwatchers (talk) 00:28, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

thanks, Wingwatchers. google's reverse image search stopped working on my old machine a long time ago, so i'm glad you were able to check. i admittedly didn't take the age of the image on commons into account, as the recently deleted image i was referring to in my previous comment had been there for over seven years. dying (talk) 22:59, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ormond beatty Y

would it be appropriate to link "Danville Theological Seminary" to the "Louisville Presbyterian Theological Seminary" article? ordinarily, i would have expected educational institutions to be linked if there was a suitable article to target on wikipedia, but i was unable to find this article linked at all in the featured article, so i wasn't sure if there was a reason for the omission. dying (talk) 23:59, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I had that linked - thanks for the heads-up! Fixed in the article and the TFA blurb. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 16:39, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

angeline quinto Y

i had two questions about this blurb.

should the "Ang" in "Patuloy Ang Pangarap" be uncapitalized, since the word "ang" is an article? although i realize that mos:titlecaps applies only to english titles, i thought i might raise the issue because i believe many of the rules of capitalization in tagalog (written in latin script) are similar to those in english.
i removed the link to the "7th PMPC Star Awards for Music" article because it covered the 2015 award, while quinto won the award in 2011. unfortunately, removing this link made it less clear why "for Music" is being mentioned in the blurb. i am worried that, for many main page readers unfamiliar with the award, "Star Award for Music for Song of the Year" may sound redundant. would it be appropriate to simply drop "for Music" to avoid the issue?

dying (talk) 13:59, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

dying - Thanks for taking a second look. Agreed on the first point. "Ang" is the article "The" in Filipino. As for your second question, I initially added it as the awards organization bestows it to three different media, Star Awards of Movies, Star Awards for Television, and Star Awards for Music. I would agree to avoid being redundant that dropping "for Music" is fine since the nominated / awarded work is in the field of music anyway. Pseud 14 (talk) 14:43, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ulf merbold Y

i had two questions about this blurb.

the blurb mentions that merbold became an astronaut in 1977, while the article lead and body only seem to state that he applied in 1977, and are somewhat unclear about when he actually became an astronaut. did he actually become an astronaut that same year? i found this esa source that states that "[i]n 1977, Ulf was pre-selected by ESA as a Payload Specialist", but i also found another esa source titled "History: ESA's first astronauts, 1978", which suggests that merbold did not become an astronaut until 1978, even if he was "pre-selected by ESA" in 1977.
i am a bit troubled by the wording "ESA–Russian" because the esa is a space agency, while russia is a country. should this be reworded to avoid the inconsistency? had russia's space agency been named "Roscosmos" in 1994, rewording the modifier would have been simple, but it was apparently named "Russian Space Agency" at the time, and "a joint ESA–Russian Space Agency Euromir mission" may be a bit unwieldy. i had also considered replacing "ESA–Russian" with "European–Russian", though doing so seems inconsistent with the earlier use of "NASA mission". unfortunately, i don't have any great alternatives to suggest. the best i could come up with was the following.

	a joint ESA–Russian Euromir mission to the space station Mir
→	a Euromir mission, jointly under the ESA and the Russian Space Agency, to the space station Mir

admittedly, i'm not sure if this is a valid concern, or even if it is, whether it'd be better to gloss over it anyway since i can't really think of any clearly better alternatives.

by the way, i also felt that, in the phrases "STS-42 NASA mission" and "ESA–Russian Euromir mission", either the space agencies should be listed first in both phrases, or be listed second in both. i didn't address this in my copyedit because i wasn't sure if the blurb was going to be reworded so that this was no longer an issue anyway.

courtesy pinging Hawkeye7, who participated in a discussion about this wording in the fac nomination.

also, i just wanted to note here, in case it comes up at wp:errors, that the date format used in the blurb is the same as that used in the article lead, and that the issue had been raised and resolved in the fac nomination, so it probably shouldn't be changed without good reason. dying (talk) 22:59, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As far as NASA was concerned, he was a payload specialist, an individual selected and trained for flights of a specific payload on a NASA Space Shuttle mission. People assigned as payload specialists included individuals selected by the research community, a company or consortium flying a commercial payload aboard the spacecraft, and non-NASA astronauts designated by international partners. Merbold fell into the last category.

The ESA selected him in May 1978. [1] NASA astronauts had to undergo a year of training (during which they are referred to as astronaut candidates) before they were awarded their astronaut pin, but this did not apply to ESA astronauts. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:32, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The date format harks back to the original creation of the article in 2003. Following WP:RETAIN, it was not changed. We can change it if there is consensus to do so. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:36, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @dying! The 1977/1978 story is correct in the body of the article but has become misleading in lead and even more so in the blurb. I just checked Merbold's autobiography and it says that ESA selected them in late 1977 and then sent them to NASA for training, but he only had the job title of "science astronaut" from July 1978. I've changed the blurb to say he "applied". For the date format and spelling, I decided to keep the original dmy and American when I expanded the article, basically because the subject's main claim to fame is his work with NASA (this is how he became my childhood hero).

For the space agencies, we could just as well remove ESA/RSA in the sentence, so I changed to "the STS-42 NASA mission in 1992 and a Euromir mission to the Russian space station Mir in 1994". I don't have a good answer to the question of what order the agencies/programs should be; "consistency" isn't something I care about for its own sake, so I don't care about consistency much unless it aids clarity. —Kusma (talk) 17:28, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kusma, simply removing "joint ESA–Russian" and mentioning "Russian" elsewhere is a brilliant solution. by the way, to be clear, i agree that the current format used for the date in the blurb should be retained. i only mentioned it so that, if the issue ends up being raised at wp:errors, any tfa coordinators who read my comment will be aware that the matter had been previously discussed. thanks for addressing these issues! dying (talk) 22:59, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]