Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/November 5, 2019

"Guy Fawkes (1570–1606) was one of a group of English Catholics who planned the failed Gunpowder Plot of 1605, commemorated in Britain every 5 November as Guy Fawkes Night." The object of the first clause is the subject of the verb in the second clause: that requires signalling of change of subject: ", which is commemorated..." Kevin McE (talk) 13:03, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Would you write "He owned a 1969 Camaro, which was nicknamed The Beast"? FA/GA style (almost always) is "He owned a 1969 Camaro, nicknamed The Beast". - Dank (push to talk) 02:38, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would write "He owned a 1969 Camaro nicknamed The Beast", without a comma, which avoids the issue as it is not a separate clause.

Would you write "John Lennon was a member of the Beatles who had hits such as Yesterday, recently used as the title of a film" or "John Lennon was a member of the Beatles who had hits such as Yesterday, which was recently used as the title of a film"? Kevin McE (talk) 13:36, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Neither. - Dank (push to talk) 14:08, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little lost here. It might (or might not) help to pull in other copyeditors, at least as a first step. Gog and Reidgreg from WP:GOCE have been working on copyediting TFAs recently ... any thoughts? Like I say, I don't think I'm following the thread here. - Dank (push to talk) 14:18, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that the vast majority of readers would infer the correct meaning, which is my mild way of saying that it may be formally incorrect. (Assuming of course that Guy Fawkes Night commemorates the failed gunpowder plot and not the man himself.) Just as the relative clause who planned the failed Gunpowder Plot of 1605 uses the pronoun who to signal its subject (a group of English Catholics), the next clause should have a similar device to signal its subject. It's a complex sentence, but I haven't come up with a better option than the proposed which is, since we do want to have all of those essential facts in the lead sentence. I'd point out that this is a matter of style and tone; if the tone of blurbs is more relaxed than the encyclopaedic tone of articles, it might be overlooked (I don't see it causing a great deal of confusion). Is ~150 words typical for a TFA blurb? – Reidgreg (talk) 16:01, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To make it easier for the Main Page folks to balance the left and right columns, blurbs are kept between 925 and 1025 characters. (Starting with this blurb, that limit applies even if a Featured Topic is mentioned.) This one is 954 characters. So, what's your preference? - Dank (push to talk) 16:26, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If it avoids a grammar error, and remains within the acceptable size envelope, why not include "which is"? I am sure that most readers would correctly infer that the plot, not the person, is commemorated, but we shouldn't put informal grammar as an example of the best that an encyclopaedia, which is meant to be written in formal tone, has to offer. Kevin McE (talk) 17:17, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For me, "which is" becomes completely acceptable if the sentence is long enough (that's a matter of taste here), and if there's some reason not to split the sentence (there is). Reidgreg, you seem to be on board with "which is" AFAICT, so I made the edit ... let me know if I misread that. - Dank (push to talk) 18:33, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, I like the which is. BTW, don't hold anything up on my account, I'm just another editor who happened to get volunteered to wear a particular hat. – Reidgreg (talk) 20:46, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]