Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/July 2023

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Provisional for July 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? Blurb? Notes
1 Title (EP) MaranoFan 2022 FT TFAR date Green tickY
2 Thomas A. Spragens PCN02WPS 2023 TFARP Green tickY
3 Mauritius sheldgoose FunkMonk 2021 Green tickY Jim
4 Battle of Helena HF 2023 TFAR date Green tickY
5 South of Heaven LuciferMorgan 2007 TFAR date Green tickY
6 Radiocarbon dating Mike Christie 2015 2015 Jim
7 John Mowbray, 3rd Duke of Norfolk Serial Number 54129 2018 Green tickY
8 Third Test, 1948 Ashes series YellowMonkey, Z1720 2010 FT TFAR date Green tickY
9 Tiberius III Iazyges ⋅ 2023 Green tickY Jim
10 Pasqua Rosée SchroCat 2023 Green tickY
11 Trade dollar (United States coin) RHM22 2011 2011 Jim
12 The Dance of the Twisted Bull PMC 2023 Green tickY Jim
13 Margaret Murray Midnightblueowl 2016 2016 date Green tickY
14 The Dark Knight Darkwarriorblake 2023 TFARP date Jim
15 Sweetheart (Rainy Davis song) Heartfox 2022 Jim
16 Katrina Kaif AB01 and FrB.TG 2022 TFAR date Green tickY
17 David Kelly (weapons expert) SchroCat 2022 date Green tickY
18 The Black Cat (US magazine) Mike Christie 2022 Green tickY
19 Al-Walid I Al Ameer son 2023 Green tickY
20 Battle of Inverkeithing Gog the Mild 2021 TFAR date Green tickY
21 Guitar Songs Yours truly 2023 TFAR date Green tickY
22 1959–60 Burnley F.C. season Eem dik doun in toene 2022 Green tickY Jim
23 Pavo (constellation) Cas Liber 2016 2016 Jim
24 American logistics in the Normandy campaign Hawkeye7 2020 date Green tickY
25 Dish-bearers and butlers in Anglo-Saxon England Dudley Miles 2022 Green tickY
26 Mick Jagger TheSandDoctor ⋅2022 TFARP date Green tickY
27 Atlantic City–Brigantine Connector Dream out loud 2022 date Green tickY
28 Eurasian rock pipit Jimfbleak 2016 Green tickY
29 Galeb-class minelayer Peacemaker67 2022 FT TFARP Green tickY
30 Christopher Nolan :Sammyjankis88 and FrB.TG 2023 TFARP date Green tickY
31 Hurricane Hector (2018) Hurricane Noah 2020 FT TFAR date Green tickY

Provisional for 2023 comments

  • Battle of Corydon was noticed by Hog Farm. [1] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:04, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • FWIW, should we be running two ACW battle articles in the same week? It might be an either/or situation with Helena and Corydon. 15:01, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
  • La Salute è in voi is at WP:TFAP for Aug 12. @Czar:. Z1720 (talk) 14:21, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, if possible to hold it for then. Thank you! czar 17:48, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • An odd unsigned comment at the top of the talk page of Talk:Tomb of Philippe Pot: Not to be given a blurb or scheduled for TFA. @Ceoil:?? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:41, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    From here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:59, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Postpone

Hi, thank you for putting this together. I'd like to hold Growing Up Absurd for October (per WP:TFAP) if possible. czar 17:45, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Postpone

Thanks Wehwalt for the blurb for Tomb of Philippe Pot, but can this be held off pls. It was a very bitter FAC, and would prefer not to see it scheduled. Ceoil (talk) 22:54, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Option for July 2023

@WP:TFA coordinators , since there are two requests above, one option to replace them might be Trade dollar (United States coin), as July 11 is the coin's 150th anniversary of being struck. It would be a TFA re-run from 2011, and it's an older article so it will need to be checked, but I don't see any glaring issues with it. Z1720 (talk) 20:00, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Z1720 I'll run Trade dollar (United States coin), on July 11 and replace one of the two postponement requests with the Burnley FC article, I find something else for the other, i still have a spare rerun slot Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:08, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jimfbleak: WP:URFA/2020A has a list of "Kept or FAR not needed" FAs from the last couple of years. Some options to consider (from topics that are not scheduled for July's TFA yet) are Anglo-Saxon Chronicle (literature), Go Man Go (race horse, no image), Laplace–Runge–Lenz vector (math/physics, no image?), Carucage (law, history), or Green children of Woolpit (history, myth?). Hope this helps! Z1720 (talk) 12:59, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent! I'm about to do Atlantic City–Brigantine Connector from a TA review which has a 27 July date many thanks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:05, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Z1720 forgot to ping Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:06, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Z1720 I think they have all been TFAs before, I'm up to my limit for the month Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:35, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jimfbleak: Yes, they have all been TFA before. The instructions at WP:TFA/R say there can be 2 per week; is that still the case? The week of July 16-22 have 0 reruns in the chart above, so rearranging some reruns into that week might be an option. Non-TFA rerun options might be Coccinellidae (biology, insect) or Hungarian nobility (culture, nobility). Z1720 (talk) 14:56, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Z1720 You are right. I thought of the two non-runs, but the writer of the first often has a date link, and I couldn't face writing a blurb for the Hungarian one. I think at least one of the current listings is likely be requested to be run on a different date, so I'll put in another rerun (or two) when that happens Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:05, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

South of Heaven, TFA July 5

Content copied from User talk:SandyGeorgia

SandyGeorgia, i am sorry to bring this up with you, but i am concerned about the quality of one of the featured articles scheduled to appear on the main page in about a week. i think there may be some issues with close paraphrasing, and thought it would be appropriate to raise this issue with you, as i know that you have been involved with far and urfa, and that you have dealt with a featured article with copyright issues before while it was featured on the main page.

while copyediting the blurb and reviewing the sources cited by the article, i noticed that the blurb sounded suspiciously similar to this paragraph that was published on slayer's official web site. digging a little deeper, i found more similarities in the article that i would consider problematic, such as the following.

article:    Two songs taken from the album ("Mandatory Suicide" and "South of Heaven") have become near constant fixtures in the band's live setlist
source:    two songs from the album ("Mandatory Suicide" and "South of Heaven") have become almost permanent additions to the band's live setlist

i also noticed that this article was promoted to featured article status in 2007. although i understand that our standards regarding what constitutes close paraphrasing were fairly lax at the time compared to our standards today, i am assuming that our current standards apply for articles scheduled to be featured on the main page. note that my copyedit of the blurb has left the wording largely untouched, as i do not feel that it would be appropriate for me to substantially reword the blurb unilaterally simply to alleviate my personal concerns.

if you feel that the issues in the article are not serious enough to be actionable, then please let me know, and i will apologize for wasting your time. alternatively, if there is a more appropriate place for me to raise this concern, i can shift the discussion to there instead. thanks in advance. dying (talk) 00:33, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, all; sorry to bring this here, but dying has identified a problem, and I agree there is a close paraphrasing problem. Dying is correct that there was limited awareness of the need to check for paraphrasing or copyvio issues back in 2007, and standards were more lax (the copyvio issue that raised awareness at FAC was in 2010). Here is the promoted version. The problem may be less egregious than it looks as I notice that one of the bits of concern in the lead is actually in quotes in the body of the article, but those quote marks didn't get carried to the lead. But there is also the second instance raised by dying, which is too close for comfort. Unfortunately, this does mean a closer look is warranted and decisions have to be made quickly about whether to run the TFA.
  1. If, upon examination, it is only sporadic instances of too-close paraphrasing, and if Ceoil is around and can act quickly, he is competent to evaluate, and take this on, and get it addressed in short order. But he would need to move quickly in terms of the proximity of the TFA. LuciferMorgan could also get it cleaned up if there are not bigger issues, but I see LM is barely active.
  2. If someone can't quickly dig in and see there is more, or if more than just minor rephrasing or addition of quotes is needed to address sporadic too-close paraphrasing, then @WP:TFA coordinators may need to consider swapping this out. Also ping Z1720. Also ping Hawkeye7 because switching out TFAs at this late stage makes a mess in many places, in ways that might engage FACBot.
I wish I could help more with the digging-in part, but I'm afraid my time has become very compromised of late, and the rest of the week is out for me. Thanks for your diligence, dying. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:26, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
many thanks, SandyGeorgia, for reviewing my concerns and alerting those best suited for addressing them. i really appreciate it. dying (talk) 01:53, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to return the favor for all you do at the mainpage, and sorry I can't do more to help! If Ceoil is about, and can dig in, we may avert a TFA swap. PS, this is quite different from the 2010 instance, where we had a substantial outright copyright violation that made it to the mainpage, and had to be pulled mid-stream. If it's only sporadic paraphrasing issues, it can be cleaned up, hopefully. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:10, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@WP:TFA coordinators I see that Ceoil has not edited since 26 June. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:49, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
SandyGeorgia, I'm scheduling July. Given that it's for 5 July, I really need to know by tomorrow at the latest if I need to switch. User:Z1720 has listed some possible alternative articles in the section above this Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:11, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Jimfbleak Real life stuff has hit me in both good and bad ways, and I don't have time to help with the decision, but given that timing is tight and Ceoil hasn't surfaced, I'd suggest picking something safe from Wikipedia:Featured article review/FASA/Records; those have been through FAR. I'm fairly sure that Ajpolino won't have a date preference for lung cancer, if that helps. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:46, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
SandyGeorgia, thanks, I'll do it this afternoon Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:46, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Jimfbleak because of the ordered structure of most medical content, summarizing lung cancer to a blurb might not be too hard ... you can usually aim for one sentence from each paragraph of the lead to cover all aspects (definition, symptoms, cause, diagnosis, treatment, incidence or prevalance, etc). But there are many other good options from that list, too. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:58, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
SandyGeorgia, I've just posted a lung cancer blurb at the July 5 slot, please feel free to tweak as you think appropriate, I'm about to do the other bits to fix the list Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:19, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ajpolino, Colin, Spicy, and Graham Beards: I'm not thrilled with "perfomance status" in Wikipedia:Today's featured article/July 5, 2023, as that requires the reader to click out for the definition. Might you all have a look before dying digs in? The instructions are: We use one paragraph only, with no reference tags or alternative names; the only thing bolded is the first link to the article title. The length when previewed is between 925 and 1025 characters including spaces, " (Full article...)" and the featured topic link if applicable. More characters may be used when no free-use image can be found. Fair use images are not allowed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:04, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I had a go. I'm puzzled as I couldn't see performance status in the article (even as a link). I took text from the lead of Treatment section and added "age" taken from the prognosis section. I also thought "histological" was too much jargon and we'd already given detail to the small/non-small distinction already. -- Colin°Talk 06:57, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh the blurb confused me too, but now I see it's adapted from the 2007 TFA blurb rather than from the current lead. I think I'll do a slight tweaking. There are a couple places where the emphasis doesn't seem quite right (e.g. small cell vs. non-small cell. The important distinction here is that the former is more deadly). Ajpolino (talk) 13:20, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I saw that, and thought also that Treatment has some redundancy ... glad you are on it and will have a go. You can find the tool for checking word count when you're done at WP:TFAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:33, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ajpolino here are the instructions; glad you are on it. We use one paragraph only, with no reference tags or alternative names; the only thing bolded is the first link to the article title. The length when previewed is between 925 and 1025 characters including spaces, " (Full article...)" and the featured topic link if applicable. More characters may be used when no free-use image can be found. Fair use images are not allowed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:40, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I'd appreciate if someone(s) could give it a proof read. It went down from 978 characters to 912 (I think; I pasted the versions into MS Word to check). If we need another sentence to pass 925, I'm sure we can gin one up. Thanks! Ajpolino (talk) 13:42, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's in good shape; the tool returns 930 characters. dying usually looks at blurbs before they run mainpage, so now they might have a look as well. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:43, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
thanks, all, for getting this turned around so quickly. i have posted a copyedit of the blurb. incidentally, the length of the blurb before my copyedit had actually been sufficient, since the closing parenthetical linking to the article is included in the character count, but i ended up adding a few characters anyway when i reworded a sentence to avoid a dangling modifier. as usual, please feel free to revert any of my changes to the blurb if you disagree with them. dying (talk) 23:09, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All I can say here is I did not, in any way, shape or form, paraphrase this from Slayer's website. Slayer's website has actually taken this from Wikipedia, believe it or not. I do not appreciate being accused of simple paraphrasing. LuciferMorgan (talk) 20:58, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lucifer, I'm sorry you weren't able to show up sooner, so this could have been sorted as I hoped! But now it's already been switched. The archiveurl provided by dying above pre-dated your editing, so I'm confused, and one bit that was questioned in the lead is quoted in the body, but let's get this sorted on article talk so the article can be rescheduled TFA at a later date. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:01, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with postponement and repair (even not having fully read the above, but lets not be timebound). Ceoil (talk) 00:42, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note, don't have an opinion yet...reading through the article. Ceoil (talk) 01:09, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My impression is that close para-phrasing isn't rampant; frankly I should have spotted the instances of music-journalese and their copy paste of phrases from press-releases ("near constant", "fixtures") back in 2007. Don't think its fatal though, and suggest that myself and Lucifer take it talk to work through. Then maybe dying or Z1720 could aye or nay. Ceoil (talk) 02:25, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ceoil I suspected it was something the two of you could work through, and was hoping you'd pop in sooner, but unfortunately, the tight timing on TFA meant that it had to be pulled. At least we know you'll get it in shape for another month! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:38, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
ps, given a proper copyedit could iron alot of the above, am more concerned about the article being out of date, but that's for talk not here. tks. Ceoil (talk) 02:31, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Jimfbleak informed me that "Lung cancer" is scheduled for 5th July, but perhaps it has been changed to "South of Heaven"? I don't mind which article is TFA. I don't think that any extra work is required for "Lung cancer". Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:41, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Axl; it's the opposite. South of Heaven was swapped out and lung cancer in at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/July 5, 2023. If you have time, you might glance at that blurb, keeping in mind that length has to stay between 925 and 1025 characters including spaces the "Full article ... " link. Your excellent foundation is running again on the mainpage! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:49, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I like this. Thank you for arranging this. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:58, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank YOU ! Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:24, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Today%27s_featured_article/July_2023"