Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/October 4, 2019

The referring to this as "an unsigned painting (along with a nearly identical but much smaller piece)" a precedence is being given to the larger piece that is not borne out in the article. The current opening sentence of the article covers the same info without suggesting greater status to one than the other. Kevin McE (talk) 22:13, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * That wording is mine, and it was a hard call. WP:LEAD says: "Keep the first sentence focused on the subject by avoiding constructions like "[Subject] refers to..." or "...is a word for..." – the article is about the subject, not a term for the subject". I don't think I've ever at TFA had to start a blurb with "[name] is the name given to". How do we get around the prohibition at WP:LEAD? I'm open to changing it, but I couldn't think of anything else that works. - Dank (push to talk) 22:26, 21 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Yeah: I don't actually like the phrasing at the article much myself. But it is hard to see a way around it unless the article were renamed to Van Eyck's Saint Francis Receiving the Stigmata paintings, and that is not a name format that we normally go for.  It did get through FA scrutiny with that opening sentence.  I just don't think there is justification for such prioritising of one over the other.  Could we have something like "Two unsigned paintings of Saint Francis Receiving the Stigmata, both completed around 1430, are  usually now attributed to the Flemish artist Jan van Eyck. "?  But that almost moves the article name away from being the main subject of the sentence, which isn't great either. Kevin McE (talk) 22:59, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm getting ready to stop for a few hours ... but at first glance, I like it. - Dank (push to talk) 23:11, 21 September 2019 (UTC)


 * How about "Saint Francis Receiving the Stigmata is the subject of two unsigned paintings, both completed around 1430, and both usually now attributed to the Flemish artist Jan van Eyck." It sort of skirts the prohibition. --Wehwalt (talk) 00:10, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Both your methods get around the prohibition ... whatever works for you guys will be fine. - Dank (push to talk) 00:26, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I prefer Wehwalt's. Kevin McE (talk) 09:31, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay I went with the "subject of" ... feel free to tweak it. - Dank (push to talk) 23:25, 25 September 2019 (UTC)