Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/December 11, 2013

Edit request on 11 December 2013

Change "He was the eleventh generation in a large family of English and American clergymen dating back to the late fifteenth century." to "His was the eleventh generation in a large family of English and American clergymen dating back to the late fifteenth century." Does anyone read this stuff before splatting it on the front page for the horrification of millions of readers? LeadSongDog come howl! 15:07, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

 Done but consider how "does anyone read this stuff" feels to the people who volunteer to do this day in day out. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:30, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I suspect "millions of people" just didn't notice the problem even if they did read the blurb - after all, none of the many people who supported the version of the blurb approved at WP:TFAR or who supported the article at WP:FAC (upon which the blurb was based and from which this language that horrifies you so much derives) happened to notice that "his" would be better than "he" in this sentence - and nor did I, come to think of it, when I scheduled the article on 22nd November, since when nobody else spotted the problem with the blurb despite its visibility at WP:Today's featured article/December 2013... Thanks, though. Bencherlite^Talk 17:25, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for venting, but this sort of thing keeps happening. Perhaps it's because TFA isn't seen by most editors in advance of making the main page. Why not show Tomorrow's FA for logged-in editors, so they have a chance to fix them before they are unleashed on the world. If not on the main page, at least make it something that will work with watchlists. Oh, I did check before making the edit request. At the time when I checked, the FA itself did not have the "He was the eleventh generation" error in the TFA blurb, though its phrasing was a bit more verbose than mine. LeadSongDog come howl! 05:02, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Pretty much everyone involved would be thrilled if there were more eyes on things about to hit the main page. The downside is that then people would feel free to vent about you, but the upside is that there would be fewer things to vent about. It doesn't show on a watchlist when it changes, because all the changes are done via templates, but you can always see what the main page is going to look like tomorrow by going to Wikipedia:Main Page/Tomorrow. The TFA blurb for tomorrow will be protected already, but you can use WP:ERRORS for that if you find something. Or you can go to Wikipedia:Today's featured article/December 2013 and look at all the TFA's and their blurbs that have already been scheduled, and all but tomorrow's will still be unprotected and you can fix things yourself (although no one says it enough, Bencherlite does a fantastic job of maintaining that and scheduling far ahead... it didn't used to work like that. At all.). I thought there was a kind of "the next 5 upcoming TFA's" type page, but can't find it; maybe @Bencherlite: knows?. But if there is such a page, you could look at that too. If you want to focus on TFA, that would be appreciated. If you're interested in helping to proof the other things on the main page, that would be appreciated even more, but we take what we can get. I can suggest pages for reviewing those other things too; each section has a slightly different way of doing things. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:20, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the appreciation, Floquenbeam. Actually, this sort of thing doesn't keep on happening. Most days, nobody has any comments to make at WP:ERRORS about the main page blurbs. I know this because not only do I have ERRORS watchlisted but also every blurb page, and I can see how few edits there are. The change you wanted in the blurb was only made in the article at 02:28 on the day of its appearance on TFA, which is why the blurb didn't have it when I scheduled it nearly three weeks earlier. Suggestions for how to help :

1. On average, 45% of blurbs are proposed at WP:TFAR and I select the remaining 55% of TFAs myself. More eyes at TFAR are always welcome, either to nominate articles or to copyedit proposed blurbs.
2. User:Bencherlite/Future TFAs, TFLs and POTDs lists everything scheduled for the next 28 days. Add a link to your user/user talk page, click it every so often to see what's coming up and help tweak blurbs in all three areas.
3. Alternatively, add a link to your user/usertalk page in the format [[Wikipedia:Today's featured article/{{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTYEAR}}]] and you will get Wikipedia:Today's featured article/November 2024, always linking to the current month's TFAs.
4. Forthcoming TFAs are picked up in WikiProject alerts by AAlertBot (see e.g. this diff) so you can watchlist a few projects where you might be able to help with tweaking blurbs.
5. A bot notifies the main editors of a selected article of its forthcoming appearance, thus alerting them and those who have those editors' pages watchlisted (or you can see the edits made by Special:Contributions/UcuchaBot).

Hope these suggestions help. Bencherlite^Talk 17:02, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

• @LeadSongDog: - The smug condescension and sanctimonious nitpicking aside, thanks for pointing out an error about twenty of us missed.--ColonelHenry (talk) 20:40, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
  • You say smug condescension, I say frustration. Looking back over the past week it is not very hard to see nits that could have been picked simply by having more such santimonious eyes applied. However, like many editors, I am watchlist driven. I only look at my talkpage when something changes there. Since none of the links above are actually updated from day to day, watchlisting them does not generate a reminder. I suppose I'll need to go create a daily chores list, put one of those on that list, and then get in the habit of visiting it. LeadSongDog come howl! 22:29, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
    • @LeadSongDog:: spending a few hundred words and the petulant rhetoric of "does anyone read this stuff" qualifies as smug condescension in my book when the difference being is from a seemingly innocuous "he was" to "his was"...a 1 byte fix that went unnoticed by one of the 9,822 people who read it yesterday. If you want to throw a few chores up, maybe if you spent more time at FAC, similar nits to be picked would be properly addressed early on in the process. I usually have one or two of the editors I work with to CE an article...but even here and there we miss something that doesn't seem wrong...as was the case here. I will be the first to say FAC was more rigorous last year, and it's made harder to do well with the difficulty getting a decent peer review or GOCE copyedit done beforehand because of backlog and then the risk of getting a lazy reviewer. I have a FAC going right now...I'd appreciate a thorough nitpicking (but with a little less attitude). Remember, mistakes always will be made...not even the New York Times goes to print perfect every time. But I doubt its readers rant about one character space worth of content.--ColonelHenry (talk) 22:47, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
    • @LeadSongDog: If there's one page to watchlist, I'd suggest User:Bencherlite/TFA notepad. When I schedule a TFA, I update that page. If there's another page to watchlist, try WP:TFAR. Bencherlite^Talk 22:59, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
      • Done, thank you. LeadSongDog come howl! 23:09, 12 December 2013 (UTC)