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.
i've resized the image because there is currently a bug in the code for the {{main page image/TFA}} template (as explained here [perm]) which made the image about twice as large as it should be. that being said, if the actual dimensions of the cover of the handbook are unimportant, i think the image could use a crop, so that the margins won't end up taking a good deal of the space allotted to the image. does this seem like a good idea? at right is a mock-up of how this image might be cropped, shown at roughly the size it would appear at if displayed on the main page.
as the subject's title is in italian, shouldn't the article's title be using a lowercase 's'? the cover clearly shows the 's' uncapitalized. i'm also uncertain over whether there should be an exclamation mark in the article's title. the article itself seems to be inconsistent regarding its use.
along similar lines, i am uncertain if the phrase "Health/Salvation Is within You!" is formatted properly. if this is the english title of the handbook, then i think "within" should be capitalized to conform with mos:5, as it is a preposition that is at least five letters long. my impression from the article, though, is that the phrase is just an english translation of the title. is that the case? if so, i think it may be better to use sentence case. also, mos:slash suggests avoiding unclear uses of the slash, so perhaps dropping one of the translations of salute, as in "Salvation is within you!", would make things more clear.
although the "applied chemistry" redirect targets the "Subdisciplines" section of the "chemistry" article, surprisingly, the article itself doesn't appear to define "applied chemistry" at all. in fact, the section targeted seems to provide an overview that is largely unrelated to the blurb's context. if it appears that providing this link will not really be helpful for our main page readers, should the link be retargeted, or perhaps removed?
personally, i feel that the shortening of the last sentence to conform with the character limit leaves the conclusion feeling a little awkward, as the final sentence begins with "Ultimately", and then makes a statement that doesn't really tie things together, leaving readers to conclude for themselves that the handbook did not effectively serve its intended purpose. would the following substitution be an improvement? it more closely follows the original concluding sentence.
Ultimately, perpetrators of successful political bombings from this era had career backgrounds in explosives and were not self-taught amateurs.
→
Ultimately, the handbook proved to be impractical, as perpetrators of successful political bombings from this era had career backgrounds in explosives.
Thanks for the suggestions. I suggest keeping the original image dimensions unless there is no way for the mainpage to support it. A crop gives an untrue impression of the work's dimensions and we wouldn't do that for any other medium. The title follows common usage in English-language sources[1] per Wikipedia:Article titles § Foreign names and anglicization. The precedent in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization) § Capitalization of expressions borrowed from other languages isn't crystal clear but generally we capitalize the first letter and proper noun. There isn't an English title for the handbook, so it's just a translation. The slash conveys a useful, more accurate meaning without having to write the phrase twice. It would be more confusing without the slash. Definition added for applied chemistry, which should have been better defined at the target but did already explain the practice of applied chemistry. Sources didn't say that the handbook itself was impractical as we only know the author's idea and not its actual application. I've edited the sentence for clarity. czar14:13, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
admittedly, to me, this is a rather strange blurb, as it spends about half of the time discussing the name of the empire, and about another half discussing what happened before the empire was founded, but states almost nothing about the empire itself. my guess is that the tfa/r nomination for the article was simply based on the first paragraph of the article lead, as the blurb appears to follow that paragraph almost verbatim, save for (1) a few links; (2) the capitalization of one of the instances of "Rashtrakuta Empire"; and (3) the omission of one sentence, presumably due to the character limit.
was the unusual focus of this blurb deliberate? if so, feel free to ignore this concern. alternatively, i can try to draft a more comprehensive blurb, though it might take me a while to do so.
by the way, although the article consistently leaves "empire" uncapitalized in "Rashtrakuta empire", i have capitalized the second instance in the blurb to conform with the first instance, as (1) the title of the "Rashtrakuta Empire" article capitalizes it (although its capitalization varies in the rest of the article), (2) the title of the featured article capitalizes "Empire", and (3) the article appears to be inconsistent regarding when to capitalize "empire" in general. feel free to revert if there are any objections. also, some of the statements about the alternative terms used to refer to the western chalukya empire, as well as the statement about the previous extent of the rashtrakuta empire, do not appear to be sourced in the article body, but i do not know if it is necessary to do so. dying (talk) 22:59, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
should "whom" be "who" instead? i get this issue wrong more often than i'd care to admit, so i thought i might ask instead of replace the word unilaterally. if oliver was arguing with them, i.e., copeland and tilton, then i think "with whom Oliver argued" may be appropriate, but in this case, oliver was arguing that they "used television broadcasts [...] for private gain".
was "draw[ing] attention to the tax-exempt status given to [...] charities" one of the reasons oliver created the church? i was unable to find a source for this in the article. the only mentions of charities i could find in the article body were the references to doctors without borders.
did oliver actually state "[d]uring his show on September 13, 2015" that the church had been sent over 70,000 usd? i watched a four-minute clip from the episode where oliver announces the church's closure, and the wording he used there was "tens of thousands of dollars, mostly in single dollar bills". i admittedly don't know, however, if he mentions a more definitive amount at another point during the episode.i also checked to see how the figure stated in the blurb was reported in the three cited sources: here, here, and here. surprisingly, none of them seem to mention the figure at all. i did a little more digging and found this salon.com source that reports that oliver said "We had $70,000 donated in singles." when he appeared months later on a different television show. however, wp:salon.com notes that there is no consensus regarding whether salon.com is reliable, so i am not sure if the source i provided can be used in a featured article. also, to me, it seems like oliver mentioned the figure as an estimate rather than a lower bound.
The salon source might have gotten mixed up at some point, and I realize that is not great for an FA- thanks for doing the research, I've cut the number and reworked the sentence in the article and in the blurb. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 14:32, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
would it be a good idea to add "monetary" before "donations"? the website for the former church makes it a point to qualify this statement.
would the word "later" be more appropriate to use to describe the spinoff segments, rather than "future"? "later" can be used comparatively, while i think "future" is generally used to refer to the time after the present, rather than after a previously referenced point in time. although it seems possible that dratch will reprise her role as wanda jo in the future, the blurb uses the verb "featured", suggesting that only the segments that have aired were being described.
i wanted to note that it seems like there is currently an open request for this article to run on either the 11th or the 29th. i am assuming that this request was inadvertently overlooked because the current blurb is noticeably different from the blurb proposed at the tfa/r nomination. to me, it looks like this article can be safely switched with either the one currently scheduled for the 11th or the one for the 29th, as neither of the two other articles appear to have been scheduled due to a date request, and it does not appear as if switching with either of them would cause two blurbs addressing similar subjects to run within a short time frame. i am admittedly uncertain if there are other considerations to take into account.
offhand, if a swap with either date seems feasible, i would suggest swapping with the blurb currently scheduled for the 29th, as i believe it should be fairly easy to insert that date—the date of the gate's discovery—into the blurb. the other is the date of the formal opening ceremony in modern times, which is not mentioned in either version of the blurb. note that the blurb proposed at the tfa/r nomination exceeds the character limit by more than 200 characters, so if that version ends up being used, i assume it should be shortened. dying (talk) 02:59, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I don't quite understand this one, but it seems as though it's a TFA TIFU on my part. Do I read rightly that the article has an OK blurb scheduled to run on 9 May, and a not-OK blurb nominated for 11/29 May? If so, no objection to swapping the good blurb into either of those dates and binning the nomination. UndercoverClassicistT·C06:40, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is a little confusing. I think that I caused most of it by not closing the original nomination. Thanks for picking that up Dying. Now done. The blurb down for the 9th is a copy edit of original that became virtually a new one. Rescheduling is a little fiddly, but can be done. UndercoverClassicist, would you prefer it to run on the 29th? Gog the Mild (talk) 20:15, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
JennyOz caught a mistake in today's blurb, now fixed. I'm running through the other blurbs quickly at the moment (although I'm just reading the blurbs, not doing any research). I've made small (or tiny) edits so far to blurbs for the 18th, 19th, 20th, 22nd, 24th, 26th, 27th, 28th, and 29th. Feel free to revert or discuss. - Dank (push to talk) 02:40, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
