Only TFA schedulers should make changes to the table immediately below. But please feel free to note any concerns, queries or thoughts below it. Thanks.
FWIW, should we be running two ACW battle articles in the same week? It might be an either/or situation with Helena and Corydon. 15:01, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
@WP:TFA coordinators, since there are two requests above, one option to replace them might be Trade dollar (United States coin), as July 11 is the coin's 150th anniversary of being struck. It would be a TFA re-run from 2011, and it's an older article so it will need to be checked, but I don't see any glaring issues with it. Z1720 (talk) 20:00, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jimfbleak: Yes, they have all been TFA before. The instructions at WP:TFA/R say there can be 2 per week; is that still the case? The week of July 16-22 have 0 reruns in the chart above, so rearranging some reruns into that week might be an option. Non-TFA rerun options might be Coccinellidae (biology, insect) or Hungarian nobility (culture, nobility). Z1720 (talk) 14:56, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Z1720 You are right. I thought of the two non-runs, but the writer of the first often has a date link, and I couldn't face writing a blurb for the Hungarian one. I think at least one of the current listings is likely be requested to be run on a different date, so I'll put in another rerun (or two) when that happens Jimfbleak - talk to me?15:05, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
SandyGeorgia, i am sorry to bring this up with you, but i am concerned about the quality of one of the featured articles scheduled to appear on the main page in about a week. i think there may be some issues with close paraphrasing, and thought it would be appropriate to raise this issue with you, as i know that you have been involved with far and urfa, and that you have dealt with a featured article with copyright issues before while it was featured on the main page.
while copyediting the blurb and reviewing the sources cited by the article, i noticed that the blurb sounded suspiciously similar to this paragraph that was published on slayer's official web site. digging a little deeper, i found more similarities in the article that i would consider problematic, such as the following.
article:
Two songs taken from the album ("Mandatory Suicide" and "South of Heaven") have become near constant fixtures in the band's live setlist
source:
two songs from the album ("Mandatory Suicide" and "South of Heaven") have become almost permanent additions to the band's live setlist
i also noticed that this article was promoted to featured article status in 2007. although i understand that our standards regarding what constitutes close paraphrasing were fairly lax at the time compared to our standards today, i am assuming that our current standards apply for articles scheduled to be featured on the main page. note that my copyedit of the blurb has left the wording largely untouched, as i do not feel that it would be appropriate for me to substantially reword the blurb unilaterally simply to alleviate my personal concerns.
if you feel that the issues in the article are not serious enough to be actionable, then please let me know, and i will apologize for wasting your time. alternatively, if there is a more appropriate place for me to raise this concern, i can shift the discussion to there instead. thanks in advance. dying (talk) 00:33, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, all; sorry to bring this here, but dying has identified a problem, and I agree there is a close paraphrasing problem. Dying is correct that there was limited awareness of the need to check for paraphrasing or copyvio issues back in 2007, and standards were more lax (the copyvio issue that raised awareness at FAC was in 2010). Here is the promoted version. The problem may be less egregious than it looks as I notice that one of the bits of concern in the lead is actually in quotes in the body of the article, but those quote marks didn't get carried to the lead. But there is also the second instance raised by dying, which is too close for comfort. Unfortunately, this does mean a closer look is warranted and decisions have to be made quickly about whether to run the TFA.
If, upon examination, it is only sporadic instances of too-close paraphrasing, and if Ceoil is around and can act quickly, he is competent to evaluate, and take this on, and get it addressed in short order. But he would need to move quickly in terms of the proximity of the TFA. LuciferMorgan could also get it cleaned up if there are not bigger issues, but I see LM is barely active.
If someone can't quickly dig in and see there is more, or if more than just minor rephrasing or addition of quotes is needed to address sporadic too-close paraphrasing, then @WP:TFA coordinators may need to consider swapping this out. Also ping Z1720. Also ping Hawkeye7 because switching out TFAs at this late stage makes a mess in many places, in ways that might engage FACBot.
I wish I could help more with the digging-in part, but I'm afraid my time has become very compromised of late, and the rest of the week is out for me. Thanks for your diligence, dying. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:26, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to return the favor for all you do at the mainpage, and sorry I can't do more to help! If Ceoil is about, and can dig in, we may avert a TFA swap. PS, this is quite different from the 2010 instance, where we had a substantial outright copyright violation that made it to the mainpage, and had to be pulled mid-stream. If it's only sporadic paraphrasing issues, it can be cleaned up, hopefully. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:10, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ajpolino, Colin, Spicy, and Graham Beards: I'm not thrilled with "perfomance status" in Wikipedia:Today's featured article/July 5, 2023, as that requires the reader to click out for the definition. Might you all have a look before dying digs in? The instructions are: We use one paragraph only, with no reference tags or alternative names; the only thing bolded is the first link to the article title. The length when previewedisbetween 925 and 1025 characters including spaces, " (Full article...)" and the featured topic link if applicable. More characters may be used when no free-use image can be found. Fair use images are not allowed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:04, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ihad a go. I'm puzzled as I couldn't see performance status in the article (even as a link). I took text from the lead of Treatment section and added "age" taken from the prognosis section. I also thought "histological" was too much jargon and we'd already given detail to the small/non-small distinction already. -- Colin°Talk06:57, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh the blurb confused me too, but now I see it's adapted from the 2007 TFA blurb rather than from the current lead. I think I'll do a slight tweaking. There are a couple places where the emphasis doesn't seem quite right (e.g. small cell vs. non-small cell. The important distinction here is that the former is more deadly). Ajpolino (talk) 13:20, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I saw that, and thought also that Treatment has some redundancy ... glad you are on it and will have a go. You can find the tool for checking word count when you're done at WP:TFAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:33, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ajpolino here are the instructions; glad you are on it. We use one paragraph only, with no reference tags or alternative names; the only thing bolded is the first link to the article title. The length when previewedisbetween 925 and 1025 characters including spaces, " (Full article...)" and the featured topic link if applicable. More characters may be used when no free-use image can be found. Fair use images are not allowed.SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:40, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I'd appreciate if someone(s) could give it a proof read. It went down from 978 characters to 912 (I think; I pasted the versions into MS Word to check). If we need another sentence to pass 925, I'm sure we can gin one up. Thanks! Ajpolino (talk) 13:42, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's in good shape; the tool returns 930 characters. dying usually looks at blurbs before they run mainpage, so now they might have a look as well. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:43, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
thanks, all, for getting this turned around so quickly. i have posted a copyedit of the blurb. incidentally, the length of the blurb before my copyedit had actually been sufficient, since the closing parenthetical linking to the article is included in the character count, but i ended up adding a few characters anyway when i reworded a sentence to avoid a dangling modifier. as usual, please feel free to revert any of my changes to the blurb if you disagree with them. dying (talk) 23:09, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All I can say here is I did not, in any way, shape or form, paraphrase this from Slayer's website. Slayer's website has actually taken this from Wikipedia, believe it or not. I do not appreciate being accused of simple paraphrasing. LuciferMorgan (talk) 20:58, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Lucifer, I'm sorry you weren't able to show up sooner, so this could have been sorted as I hoped! But now it's already been switched. The archiveurl provided by dying above pre-dated your editing, so I'm confused, and one bit that was questioned in the lead is quoted in the body, but let's get this sorted on article talk so the article can be rescheduled TFA at a later date. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:01, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My impression is that close para-phrasing isn't rampant; frankly I should have spotted the instances of music-journalese and their copy paste of phrases from press-releases ("near constant", "fixtures") back in 2007. Don't think its fatal though, and suggest that myself and Lucifer take it talk to work through. Then maybe dying or Z1720 could aye or nay. Ceoil (talk) 02:25, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ceoil I suspected it was something the two of you could work through, and was hoping you'd pop in sooner, but unfortunately, the tight timing on TFA meant that it had to be pulled. At least we know you'll get it in shape for another month! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:38, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
ps, given a proper copyedit could iron alot of the above, am more concerned about the article being out of date, but that's for talk not here. tks. Ceoil (talk) 02:31, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Jimfbleak informed me that "Lung cancer" is scheduled for 5th July, but perhaps it has been changed to "South of Heaven"? I don't mind which article is TFA. I don't think that any extra work is required for "Lung cancer". Axl¤[Talk]12:41, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]