Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/June 26, 2022

Building the TFA blurb
Discussion of development of TFA blurb was held at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests/J. K. Rowling. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  10:03, 4 May 2022 (UTC)


 * i have to make changes that i believe are routine and uncontroversial, but do not mind if anyone wishes to revert some or all of my changes.  dying (talk) 00:00, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me, thanks! Sandy Georgia (Talk)  00:45, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Proposed changes

 * regarding more substantial issues, i had three points that i wanted to bring up, and two minor suggestions.  &#x25b6;   the first sentence uses "J. K. Rowling" as words but does not use italics or quotation marks, violating mos:wordsaswords.i believe this issue is often ignored in cases where the words being used as words constitute a name, and enough context has been established before the name is presented that a reasonable reader would expect to encounter words being used as words.  (perhaps this issue can be seen more clearly by comparing the statements "dying is my name" and "my name is dying".)  however, because, in this case, the blurb starts off immediately with the pen name, i believe it is reasonable to assume that many readers, when first encountering the start of the blurb, would have parsed "J. K. Rowling" to refer to the writer rather than the pen name.  as a result, the subsequent "is a pen name" is likely to force a significant reparsing, which may cause the reader to have significantly lower expectations about the readability of the rest of the blurb early on.mos:wordsaswords advocates using italics when using words as words, though it also notes that double quotation marks can be used if italics can cause confusion.  i do not believe there is any practice specific to tfa blurbs; italics have been used, double quotation marks have been used , and, because italics were already used for a latin name, double quotation marks were used .  however, in the rowling blurb, if one of these two options were implemented, i would suggest using the double quotation marks, because, without prior context, rowling's pen name in italics has a number of plausible meanings, while the name in double quotation marks would almost certainly be interpreted as a use of the name as words.alternatively, the opening can be reworded to provide the appropriate context prior to the pen name.  consider, for example, the following rewording.

""
 * this also makes the author the subject of the sentence, which, i would assume, is preferable to having the pen name be the subject. if there is a preference to keep the pen name bolded, then "Joanne Rowling, also known as J. K. Rowling", could also work.  on the other hand, since the article is focused on the author rather than the persona behind the pen name "J. K. Rowling", rowling may appreciate the real name being bolded instead of the pen name, even if the article is titled according to wp:commonname.i recognize that  had previously  of the pen name being the subject, though the concern appears to have been ignored.   &#x25b6;   the blurb asserts that rowling lived on state assistance following her divorce, but i could not find a cited source that explicitly stated this.the article body states that "[i]n the summer of 1995, a friend gave her money that allowed her to go off benefits", while also asserting that her divorce "was finalised on 26 June 1995".  the lack of detail regarding the timing of the former makes it unclear which of the two events occurred first, but the cited smith source mentions both events in the same paragraph, with wording that suggests that the former had occurred before the divorce was made final.  (note also that the current article lead does not appear to mention that rowling had lived on state assistance after her divorce, so this assertion appears to have inadvertently crept into the blurb after multiple revisions.)   &#x25b6;   i think the use of the phrase "In the seven years before the 26 June 1997 publication of her first Potter novel" may be problematic.the phrase does not seem natural to me, as i think the inclusion of the specific date of publication in the phrase feels forced.  in addition, it may suggest (though does not assert) that rowling was receiving state assistance for seven years, even though she was receiving assistance for probably only about a year and a half.  i would like to suggest a rewrite of this sentence, to address both this issue and the previous one about the timing of the divorce.

""
 * note that the rewrite no longer explicitly mentions the seven-year period, but now explicitly mentions when her mother died and when her marriage failed, so there is more information than before, and the fact that her mother died seven years before the first novel's publication can easily be calculated.there are two other relatively minor rewordings that i would like to suggest.

""
 * to my ear, using "perceived conventional" as a premodifier sounds really stilted, though i acknowledge that this could be dialectal. (i would be more likely to state "i compose music deemed unlistenable" than "i compose deemed unlistenable music".)

""
 * though i am not sure if the order was deliberate, the lack of an oxford comma may cause confusion and result in a reader interpreting the passage to mean that rowling advanced charitable causes centered around political causes. (if i said "i like pizza topped with basil, ham and cheese, as well as pineapples", then do i like pineapples on my pizza?)note that the net change in blurb length, if the suggestions above are implemented (with the opening reworded rather than italics or double quotation marks used), is zero.apologies for the delayed comment; i had scribbled down some notes to myself and had forgotten that this blurb was appearing soon.  in any case, i think the blurb is good enough as is, so no action needs to be taken if none of the above seems important enough to address.  dying (talk) 17:33, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * No need for apology; continued below. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  19:12, 25 June 2022 (UTC)


 * I'll comment regarding the first issue only: Joanne Rowling is so widely known as J.K. Rowling that two have become one, so to speak. I understand the technical issue but I think we would do a disservice to the reader by wasting space on being picky., just want to be sure you're aware of dying's comments here.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:25, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I am looking now; give me more than a moment, as the formatting of the original post is confusing. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  18:39, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 1. On the first point, about the name, I agree with Wehwalt, and add that sources support the naming used here. Being space constrained, it makes little sense to me to fiddle with this at this stage.  If we do fiddle with it, we are right at the character limit. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  18:48, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 2. The text clearly states, and the source clearly supports, that Rowling not only applied for, but also received state assistance. Rowling sought government assistance and got £69 (US$103.50) per week from Social Security; not wanting to burden her recently married sister, she moved to a flat that she characterised as mouse-ridden. See Smith p. 139 But I may be misunderstanding the original post; the question is whether she continued on assistance after her divorce? At any rate, I see that dying's proposal resolves any ambiguity, but we need to look at character count and get others on board. Setting up section below, still working. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  19:02, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't have strong opinions here. I think the "seven years before" phrasing makes it flow better, but we're working with a limited word count. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 22:57, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 3. On the third point, "Despite receiving mixed reviews for writing perceived conventional", that suggestion sounds awkward to my ear; will need to have AP, O-D and VM93 look at this. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  19:07, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree; "writing perceived conventional" sounds odd to me too. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 22:57, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 4. On the fourth point, the order was semi-deliberate (chronological) but considering the oxford comma confusion mentioned, not worth worrying about ... I've moved that change in to the proposal below. (Dying, if you could number proposals, it helps keep everyone on the same page with lengthy discussions involving many editors.) Sandy Georgia (Talk)  19:11, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Discussion of Proposal A
I have worked in some, not all, of dying's proposed changes above, and character count is still good. Feedback from others, and significant contributors, and  appreciated, and thanks to  for the close scrutiny. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  19:16, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * in the absence of any other feedback, I would support the changes suggested in the the Proposal A above. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  22:50, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I've made it. Does it look OK?--Wehwalt (talk) 22:56, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm off, probably for the night. If you need something, you'll have to get another admin (preferably a coordinator) to act.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:59, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Looks good. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  23:03, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * PS, will you be able to keep an eye on this ? Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  23:06, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * apologies for the confusing post. with three main points and two minor ones, and four proposals addressing the first point, one addressing the next two, and one each for the others, the post was admittedly difficult to format.  also, i was not sure whether to number points or proposals, though in retrospect, i should have at least done something.if Wehwalt thinks the first point can be safely ignored, then i also have no issue leaving it alone.  yes, the issue regarding the assistance was whether it continued after the divorce, not whether she received it.  (sorry for not having made that clear.)  also, i am glad to learn that my preference for the phrase "writing perceived conventional" is likely dialectal, as this will help me avoid future  considered awkward phrasing.anyway, everything looks good.  thanks, all, for addressing my concerns so quickly.  dying (talk) 01:14, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the scrutiny! Regards, Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  02:14, 26 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Sandy Georgia, I'll watch this now I'm awake Jimfbleak - talk to me?  08:29, 26 June 2022 (UTC)