User talk:Dank/Blurbs

Read this first

If I pinged you here, then you were a FAC nominator for one or more articles that appear in the table below, and I'm asking your opinion of the specific change (see the linked diff) that was made back when a blurb was written for this article for its Main Page appearance at Today's Featured Article (TFA). If you don't have a problem with the diff, then I'll post it on the user page here, but I'll remove it if you change your mind, at any time, for any reason. I won't be moving this out of my user-space ... it's mainly for my personal use, particularly when I have to come up with quick answers at WP:ERRORS ... but if other people want to do more with this, that's fine. I believe these diffs are in line with the general philosophy of article reviewers, but I need your feedback to clarify some things.

First batch

See the section above, or the short version at "TLDR" below. - Dank (push to talk) 22:27, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Gerda, you gave me permission at WT:TFA to post diffs for any of your TFA blurbs. I only found one; it's #2 in the list. Feel free to tweak it, discuss, whatever. - Dank (push to talk) 02:04, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging Evolution and evolvability, TrueHeartSusie3, Factotem, FrB.TG, Sasata

2016/4/2:

[Serpin proteins] are notable for their unusual mechanism of action, in which they

Their unusual mechanism of action [is]

accumulation of the polymers, causing cell death and organ failure

accumulation of the polymers, which can cause cell death and even organ failure

2016/6/1:

[she] was the subject of a scandal when nude photographs [appeared]

scandalous nude photographs [appeared]

2016/6/6:

On D-Day, ... [they] were to assault

... [they] assaulted

Was not active when this article made TFA. Looking at it now, I might have used "were to" to indicate a sense of a plan that didn't work out, which I think is valid, but don't object, and would not object if this change were made to the article itself, which still says "were to", now. Factotem (talk) 22:21, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll leave a note on the article talk page and come back to that after we're finished here. - Dank (push to talk) 12:37, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2016/6/9:

She [did stuff] ... following which she made her acting debut

... and made her acting debut

2016/6/15:

It is commonly known as ... although it shares this latter name

... a name it shares

2016/6/19:

become involved in the investigation

join the investigation

2016/7/5:

with the main idea revolving around flight

with flight as a main theme

2017/8/15:

[She] subsequently won a BAFTA

She won a BAFTA

2017/11/1:

The concept for the game's use of spherical platforms was first conceptualised from ideas used in Super Mario 128

The spherical platforms used in the game first appeared in Super Mario 128

Oops, the ping failed, trying again:
Pinging Evolution and evolvability, TrueHeartSusie3, Factotem, FrB.TG, Sasata. - Dank (push to talk) 19:18, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Two more: Angmering and Jaguar. - Dank (push to talk) 20:15, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The TLDR version: in one of your TFA blurbs from 2016, I made the change listed above. Did you have any objections at the time, or do you now? What I'm trying to do is get a quick consensus on some words that some FAC copyeditors consider too vague, at least in the given context (and even a little disreputable, in ways that might take a while to explain). - Dank (push to talk) 21:07, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I just added two more from 2017 ... that covers everything in my list for these 8 nominators (including Gerda), and all TFAs before mid-July 2016. More coming. (I don't want people worrying that this will turn into an open-ended exercise.) - Dank (push to talk) 00:40, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping. I was happy with the suggestions that you made. I think in both cases, they made the article clearer and more succinct. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 04:00, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good to hear it, and I'll be happy to help with more biochem articles. - Dank (push to talk) 04:30, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback so far

The feedback I'm getting so far is that the transparency is appreciated, but this plan of discussing individual diffs could conceivably cause embarrassment in the long run, so it might not work. What I'm doing now is looking at all the diffs I have and trying to come up with a summary of my conclusions, which I'll post at TFA. - Dank (push to talk) 15:56, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm overcommitted and I need to put this on hold for now. - Dank (push to talk) 22:46, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]