Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/April 2024

April is shaping up like this:

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

Notes

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

morgan bulkeley

i had two questions about this blurb.

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

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

I've changed "of the State Capital" to "at the State Capital" which is of course literally true. I think it gets the reader the picture. For blurb purposes, we don't need to go into which door it was. I don't think the final sentence implies he did anything controversial. The reader is told early in the blurb that he was only president during 1876, which is part of the brief tenure. I think the sentence is good as it stands.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:46, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've tweaked the blurb and article slightly re the door.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:13, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

oh, Wehwalt, sorry for not making it more clear before, but the details about the door was just for your information, in case you weren't already aware. the article describes the incident as if staub locked the only door to the executive offices, so i was surprised to learn that that was not the case. i agree that there is no need to mention this in the blurb.

anyway, your edits look good. thanks, Wehwalt. dying (talk) 03:59, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

playstation

i had five questions about this blurb.

i can't seem to find a reliable source stating that 3061 games were released for the console. in fact, the targeted "List of PlayStation games (A–L)" article states that there are 4105 games in wikipedia's list of games for the console (which spans two articles). the article body had actually stated that 7918 games were released, before this number was removed from the article about a day ago, apparently because that value counted releases of a game in different regions as different games. since there appears to be disagreement on exactly how many games were released for the console, would it be better to avoid giving an exact number? for example, "A total of 3,061 PlayStation games were released" could be replaced with "Thousands of PlayStation games were released".
i am also unsure about the accuracy of the value of "967 million" in the blurb. this doesn't seem to be supported by the article body, which mentions the value of "962 million" instead. note that the cited source is actually from sony itself, and the number is based on sales up to and including the first quarter of 2007. would rewording the statement to use an approximation be more prudent here as well? note that my suggestion below deliberately splits one sentence into two, to avoid having readers accidentally conflate the number of consoles sold with the number of games sold.

	The PlayStation became the first computer entertainment platform to ship over 100 million units, with eventual sales of 967 million games.
→	The PlayStation became the first computer entertainment platform to ship over 100 million units. Alongside, nearly a billion games were eventually sold.

the sentence in the blurb with the list of games actually contains a list of links to the associated series and franchises, rather than links to the games themselves. (the article lead presents the list as a list of franchises instead, so it does not have the same problem.) could this issue be resolved by adding "games from franchises such as" before "Gran Turismo"? alternatively, each of the problematic links could be replaced with a game from the associated series, although this may cause the blurb to exceed the character limit.
is there a reason the games are listed in that particular order? if there is, i was unable to figure it out. if there isn't, i would recommend sorting them alphabetically.
is there a reason why wipeout is included in this list? it looks like none of the games in the wipeout series appears in the "List of best-selling PlayStation video games" article, which includes 123 games, while all the others have at least one entry in the top 20. skimming through that list, i would have thought that dragon warrior and tony hawk's both would easily have been more worthy of inclusion.

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

This is as good a time as any to jump in and explain why I don't usually respond quickly to questions on this page (although I will sometimes fix typos and things like typos). I've got at least four reasons for this: 1. The TFA coords have all been strongly encouraging Main Page regulars to look at this page and to deal with anything that isn't an outright "error" here rather than at WP:ERRORS. I think there's a risk of undercutting that message if I jump in and respond without giving other folks a chance to voice their opinions and make edits. 2. Struggling with text can be a useful exercise, for anyone, and the struggle is part of the process. 3. I've never known what being "neutral" means in the context of TFA, but I know that it's something I'm supposed to aim for, especially when there's a chance that the discussion will become contentious, and 4. Outside of my own areas of editing, I'm usually bad at figuring out what's supported by the sources. - Dank (push to talk) 15:04, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dank: wait, I didn't nominate this and did not know it was being slotted soon, let alone April. This needs to be pulled and instead postponed for the 3rd December this year, which is the console's 30th anniversary. Any issues with sales figures could easily be rectified until then. ♦ JAGUAR 18:11, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to oblige, if you're willing to pick a substitute article from WP:Featured articles that haven't been on the Main Page#Video gaming and write a rough draft of a blurb for it (or at least indicate what you think are the points that should be mentioned). - Dank (push to talk) 19:20, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If not, I'll ask over at WT:WPVG to see if we can get a substitute. - Dank (push to talk) 02:11, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

daytona usa

i had two questions about this blurb.

the article seems to use the terms "arcade games" and "arcade video games" interchangeably, even though, strictly speaking, the latter is a proper subset of the former. daytona usa appears to be one of the highest-grossing arcade video games of all time, but was it really one of the highest-grossing arcade games of all time?
i don't know if the latter is obviously true due to wp:bluesky, but i would have guessed that a number of pachinko games would have dominated the list. i admittedly haven't done extensive research on the subject, but skimming through a few sources, it seems like annual revenues for the arcade video game market worldwide during the 1990s hovered around 10 billion usd, while annual revenues for the pachinko market in japan during the 1990s was around 300 billion usd. (for comparison, the annual military budget for the u.s. during the 1990s was also about 300 billion usd.)
i assume that this issue can be bypassed by simply replacing "highest-grossing arcade games" with "highest-grossing arcade video games", but i didn't want to do so unilaterally if daytona usa was actually one of the highest-grossing arcade games of all time.
to me, the last two sentences seem a bit repetitive, and i am not sure why the blurb ends with the comparison to arcade games (or arcade video games) with respect to revenue, rather than the more general comparison to video games. (the article lead ends with the latter.) would a substitution like the one below be an improvement?

	It has been frequently named one of the best video games of all time. Daytona USA is one of the highest-grossing arcade games of all time.
→	Daytona USA is one of the highest-grossing arcade games ever, and has been frequently named one of the best video games of all time.

of course, "highest-grossing arcade games" here should be replaced with "highest-grossing arcade video games" if the suggestion in the first bullet point is to be implemented.

Yes, the last two sentences felt repetitive to me too. I don't have a preference on how to fix it. - Dank (push to talk) 13:31, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I went with your text; comments and edits are still welcome, of course. - Dank (push to talk) 13:58, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

marshfield station

i had three questions about this blurb.

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

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

The nominator hasn't edited since November. Anyone have a recommendation? - Dank (push to talk) 22:48, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dying, I'm fine with your proposals here, if no one else has input. - Dank (push to talk) 15:11, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

oh, i admittedly didn't provide a specific suggestion regarding the first bullet point because i wasn't sure what would be best. according to the article body, the metropolitan west side elevated railroad company took over operations about 17 months after service began, and entered receivership the following year, so if we still wish to mention the company in the blurb, the following is the best alternative i could come up with.

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

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

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

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

alt3: Constructed by the West Side Construction Company,

i think any of these three options could work. dying (talk) 03:59, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You've pointed out problems with alt1 and alt3 so ... alt2? Make whichever edits you like and I'll take another look. - Dank (push to talk) 04:12, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

done. does it look like it still needs work? dying (talk) 23:59, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks great, thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 00:10, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

hrabri-class submarine

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

I don't personally have a preference for either style, and I don't know which is better. - Dank (push to talk) 15:14, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

same here. if desired, i think we could avoid the issue altogether by replacing "Yugoslav generals in exile" with "exiled Yugoslav generals". dying (talk) 03:59, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

appalachian spring

i had three questions about this blurb.

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

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

I’ll address these soon- out of town now and will likely have time tomorrow. Thanks for the comments MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 13:23, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dying, all fixed- thank you for the comments! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 08:40, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks MCIAC, looks good to me. - Dank (push to talk) 15:14, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

same here. thanks, MyCatIsAChonk. dying (talk) 03:59, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

the boy jones

i had three questions about this blurb.

the blurb's opening seems a bit convoluted since the text used for the bolded link is supposed to be the same as the article title. could the opening be structured like that in the article lead instead? interestingly, this would mean that the bolded link would appear after "Edward Jones" is mentioned, but i don't think that would violate any tfa rules.

	The boy Jones (Edward Jones; 7 April 1824 – c. 1895) was
→	Edward Jones (7 April 1824 – c. 1895), also known as "the boy Jones", was

- I see your point. SchroCat, I think either of these would work, do you have a preference? - Dank (push to talk) 13:59, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - Either is fine for me. - SchroCat (talk) 07:01, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the blurb introduces jones as a thief, even though his thievery does not appear to be the main reason for his notoriety; the article actually never uses the word "thief". would it be more appropriate to use the word "stalker", as the article lead does? i recognize that "stalker" may be a less familiar word to some, but the blurb currently makes no mention of the queen, so someone entirely unfamiliar with jones may be led to believe that he was simply a thief that happened to target buckingham palace a few times.
- Although the blurb has to follow the article, it also has to be able to stand on its own. I don't advise using the word "stalker" in the blurb because there's nothing in the blurb that supports the notion that he was a stalker ... and I don't think that we can, or should, try to fix that. - Dank (push to talk) 13:59, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - I’m not happy with “thief”, although I accept your point in “stalker” too. Do we have to pigeon hole him at all? Something along the lines of “... Jones" became notorious for breaking into Buckingham Palace several times between 1838 and 1841”? That's where his notability lies, rather than him being a thief or stalker. - SchroCat (talk) 09:17, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    - No objection, if you or Dying would like to change it. - Dank (push to talk) 13:48, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      - oh, Dank and SchroCat, those are both good points. also, i like how the opening sentence has been reworded. thanks for addressing this! dying (talk) 23:59, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
is there a reason why, in the blurb, article lead, and article body, the theory that jones died in 1896 is mentioned before the one positing that he died in 1893?

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

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

bob mann

i had four questions about this blurb.

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

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

Sorry, long weekend. I will dive into this more tomorrow. I edited the lead to say "through part of the 1954 season", so hopefully that should be resolved. Regarding the first two, I think the article may need to be tweaked a bit (the lead is better than the body), but I think it is important to note the importance of "breaking the color barrier", even if past black players played or were signed with either team. Breaking the color barrier is important as it is about knowingly signing black players. All that said, I'll take a look tomorrow and make some tweaks. Once the article is solid, the blurb should be easy enough to update. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 01:45, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The devil is in the details, and I'm not faulting your language at all, this is just really hard to write about. "knowingly" (and many other words we might use here) has negative connotations. I agree the color barrier is important ... but since we only have 1025 characters max, we probably don't have enough space to define terms that some readers won't be familiar with, unless we get lucky. So ... not sure, I might bow out of this one, depending on which way you want to go. - Dank (push to talk) 12:59, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dank, my biggest concern is making sure the article is correct. I'll tackle the blurb in a bit.

dying, after rereading the article, I think the current language is fine regarding race. The lead says "broke the color barrier", which is an adequate summary of the body of the article, which includes some clarifying statements on what that means. Note, I removed the yards per reception. Not sure how that got in there, but its been a while.

Gonna look at the blurb now. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:39, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Made changes here. Clarified the receiving yards, changed to color barrier, added the acronym NFL and reduced National Football League in its second instance, removed duplicate "Detroit" and "Green Bay" and added "partway" for the 1954 season. Thoughts? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:43, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are questions I can't answer here ... I just have to trust that if someone has a problem with it, they'll say something. - Dank (push to talk) 13:09, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I added "(alongside Mel Groomes)" per Dying's suggestion above. - Dank (push to talk) 05:04, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

looks good. thanks, both of you. dying (talk) 11:59, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

mercury seven

i had three questions about this blurb.

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

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

The trimming of words to reduce the lead down to blurb size. The Soviet Union was the only country realistically considering sending people into space at the time. The article remains focused on the subject, and we don't normally write comparisons.
There were automated flights, and flights with chimpanzees on board. I dislike the term "crewed" and avoid it when I can.
You are quite right. I have deleted the 'an"

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:21, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ah, good to know. i will keep in mind your aversion to the word "crewed" in the future. thanks, Hawkeye7! dying (talk) 23:59, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

telopea speciosissima

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

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

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

I'd really prefer not to. I'm trying to reach as many of our 5 million Main Page readers as I can, not just the ones who feel comfortable with botanical Latin. If we were talking about a species with varied or obscure common names, then sure, sometimes the scientific name is preferable. - Dank (push to talk) 01:36, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

oh, that is totally fine, Dank. i only brought it up since it seemed like an unusual departure, and i wasn't sure if it was deliberate. in that case, to address the blurb length, how does the following substitution sound?

−
The shrub can be difficult to cultivate in home gardens, ~~requiring~~ good drainage ~~and~~ ~~being~~ vulnerable to fungal disease and pests.
+
The shrub can be difficult to cultivate in home gardens, as it requires good drainage yet adequate moisture, and is also vulnerable to fungal disease and pests.

this suggestion includes additional detail, taken from the article lead, that makes it more clear why cultivation is difficult (as presumably, simply providing good drainage isn't that hard). it also replaces the participle phrases with a more conventional structure, as i think the former is somewhat more awkward and isn't really necessary to save space in this case. dying (talk) 11:59, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

kurt vonnegut

i had two questions about this blurb.

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

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

fallout

i had two questions about this blurb.

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

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

1999 sydney hailstorm

i had two questions about this blurb.

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

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

walt whitman's lectures on abraham lincoln

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

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