Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/April 1, 2007
Continuing from Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/George Washington (inventor)
[edit]
- Well, based on a tip from RockMFR, I found a rare photo :-) Zzyzx11 (Talk) 15:51, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- Ha, ha, that's an effective crop.--Pharos 16:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- Cool. I like this, too. But I suggest uncropping a bit to show the entire right forearm, and perhaps to show the entire helmut. GW looks better as a soldier in uniform. :-) --74.14.18.41 16:42, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- What I was trying to do is to hide both the spoon and the words "prepared coffee" so it is more ambiguous. But also keeping a square 100x100px image that is commonly used on the main page. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 16:55, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- Zzyzx11, I understand why and I agree with you. But, it's hard to make out what it is. I couldn't tell that the semi-circles are GW's eyes till I see the uncropped version. I just thought it's better to show more of the right arm. The spoon without the handle doesn't look like a spoon and shouldn't 'give away' too much. Let's keep the spoon off, anyways. It can be distracting. I suggest uncropping on the left to show the wrist and a little of the sleeve, and just uncrop a little bit on the right to keep the "eyes" close to the middle. The picture does not have to be a square, does it? --74.14.18.41 17:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- What I was trying to do is to hide both the spoon and the words "prepared coffee" so it is more ambiguous. But also keeping a square 100x100px image that is commonly used on the main page. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 16:55, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- Cool. I like this, too. But I suggest uncropping a bit to show the entire right forearm, and perhaps to show the entire helmut. GW looks better as a soldier in uniform. :-) --74.14.18.41 16:42, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- Ha, ha, that's an effective crop.--Pharos 16:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
I think this is an effective April Fool's article but I reverted to the original lead b/c that's much more subtle. Apologies on the edit summary which mentions "vandalism"--I was spacing when I typed that. Obviously this wasn't vandalism. But I do feel that we should go with the lead that was written and agreed upon for the article instead of just inserting something new. Best,--Alabamaboy 01:29, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- Heck, I'm not going to edit war over something as silly as this. Still, if we create an April Fool's article around here then the lead on the Main Page should be the lead of that article. The original lead is also funnier. Best, --Alabamaboy 01:43, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- It is not uncommon that the lead of an article is altered for the main page, though usually not so drastically. I also don't see why it is so important to have that lead when it can be found right in the article. In addition, the person who wrote the article in the first place is the same person who changed the lead here; the author clearly approves of it. —Centrx→talk • 01:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- I totally understand what you're saying, just disagree. Still, I've made my opinion known so I'm not going to sweat over this. Best, --Alabamaboy 01:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- It is not uncommon that the lead of an article is altered for the main page, though usually not so drastically. I also don't see why it is so important to have that lead when it can be found right in the article. In addition, the person who wrote the article in the first place is the same person who changed the lead here; the author clearly approves of it. —Centrx→talk • 01:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- Heck, I'm not going to edit war over something as silly as this. Still, if we create an April Fool's article around here then the lead on the Main Page should be the lead of that article. The original lead is also funnier. Best, --Alabamaboy 01:43, 1 April 2007 (UTC)