Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/September 20, 2024

Blurb tweaks?

Hello voorts and Wehwalt, two observations re this blurb...

I think there's a bit of disconnect in blurb. It doesn't mention that Hinder was Australian nor that they moved to Australia in 1957, so the garden seats in a suburb of Sydney seems odd.

Some possibilities for character removal to enable Aust to be mentioned:

- earning a Bachelor of Laws degree ---> earning a law degree

- Smith was born and raised in Stockton, California. ---> Smith was born and raised in California.

- While working for the United States Department of Labor, she ---> While working for the Department of Labor, she

- remove "world organizations,"

- life partner, Eleanor Mary Hinder ---> life partner, Eleanor Hinder

- in Shanghai in 1926. ---> in China in 1926. (China isn't mentioned, Shanghai appears 3 times)

- E. G. Waterhouse National Camellia Gardens ---> E. G. Waterhouse Camellia Gardens

"as the U.S. trade commissioner to Shanghai from 1928 to 1949, the" - final year should be 1939?

- article lede has "served as the United States trade commissioner to Shanghai from 1928 to 1949" but "appointed trade commissioner of Shanghai in 1928, a post she held until 1939."

- ibox has "January 1, 1928 – 1939"

- body has "Trade commissioner in Shanghai (1928–1939)" and "Smith resigned as trade commissioner in 1939" JennyOz (talk) 05:57, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JennyOz, all of those look good. 1939 is the correct year. Thanks! voorts (talk/contributions) 13:29, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've played around with it some. Can we get rid of the repeat of "Foreign Service" early in the blurb? Wehwalt (talk) 16:34, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fine with me. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:54, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Wehwalt. Can you pls change the typo in first sentence from "1949" to '1939' (per above). I have fixed that typo in the article lede. JennyOz (talk) 01:10, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The only way I can think of to get rid of the Foreign Service repeat would be to remove the agency altogether, ie:

"the first female Foreign Service officer ~~in the U.S. Foreign Service~~ to work under the Commerce Department, and the first woman to serve as trade commissioner."

Also, is using both "female" and "woman" in that sentence (per lede) intentional? JennyOz (talk) 02:26, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just feel that "the first female Foreign Service officer in the U.S. Foreign Service to work under the Commerce Department" is difficult to mess with without possibly making a mistake. Were there foreign service officers who were women, but not under Commerce? I'm reluctant to mess with it.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:09, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I don't know. Govt agencies having name changes and being shunted around Departments... I doubt the rep will come up at Errors.

But ... pls tweak the 1949 typo. (That's more likely to be spotted and reported?) JennyOz (talk) 13:14, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I can see it being discussed simply because it's such a prominent repeat, but I don't know how to distinguish it. I gather the phrasing is done this way to exclude Lucile Atcherson Curtis who seems to have been a Foreign Service officer but not under Commerce.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:04, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Smith was the first female FSO under Commerce is my understanding, not the first female FSO. She was also the first female trade commissioner, hence why female and woman precede both respectively in the article lead. To answer Jenny's question, I think I used woman the second time so that female wasn't used twice in the same sentence. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:35, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]