Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/October 18, 2019

"...an armed group in the North Midlands that roamed across the English countryside " I don't read the article as suggesting that they operated far from their home area, whereas "roaming across the English countryside" suggests that their activities were widespread across the nation. Suggest "The Coterel gang was an armed group in the North Midlands of England that was active in the late 1320s and early 1330s, a period of ..." Kevin McE (talk) 19:07, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

One problem here is that this was the last blurb Eric Corbett worked on before he was more-or-less permanently blocked ... and he had strong feelings about some of the language. I think I might come across as disrespectful if I fiddle with it too much. I don't mind pinging the nominator and the supporters, or if you'd like to raise the issue at ERRORS on the 16th, that would work for me too. - Dank (push to talk) 19:11, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

That is a difficult remedy to accept given the way I was turned upon for raising something at Errors on the day I saw it a couple of weeks ago. I have no idea who Eric Corbett is, but our only responsibility of to our readers, not banned editors. The article doesn't say that this gang "roamed across the English countryside", so I'm not sure who it is honouring to have the extract claiming it. Kevin McE (talk) 21:10, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

The blurb was written on August 16, when the lead said "roamed across the English countryside". I'm trying to give you options that will work for you. Let's try pinging the nominator: Serial Number 54129, what's your preference here? - Dank (push to talk) 21:37, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

On 16th Aug, and today, it says, "It was one of several such groups that roamed across the English countryside..." Collectively they may have roamed across the whole country: it does not assert that this particular gang did so. "Farmer Brown's flock was typical of many flocks of sheep that could be seen in all counties of England". Kevin McE (talk) 22:01, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

How about "... group that roamed across the North Midlands of England in the late 1320s ..."? - Dank (push to talk) 22:08, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

• This is something of a non-problem - visible only to those who wish to find a problem. '"roaming across the English countryside" suggests that their activities were widespread across the nation': no, it doesn't, not at all. When I was younger my mum used to say I roamed across the countryside: it meant I would go for long walks, not go off visiting every corner of the country. This is a forced 'error', deliberately misreading something in order to see a problem that's isn't there. - SchroCat (talk) 22:26, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Let's try a bit of assuming good faith, shall we? The blurb is making a phrase that was generalised into a specific about this gang, not something that the article sought to do at all. Kevin McE (talk) 22:58, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

I am assuming good faith. My reading of the blurb corresponds with that of the article, but, as Dan suggests, I'd like to hear what Serial Number has to add. - SchroCat (talk) 23:37, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Please explain how an accusation of "deliberately misreading something in order to see a problem that's isn't there" is consistent with assuming good faith? Kevin McE (talk) 10:27, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

But the article has never said that this particular gang "roamed across the English countryside": that was generalised, not specific. Kevin McE (talk) 23:45, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Now you're just being silly. The article says that this was one of several gangs that did so, and the broader text mentions several places where they were active. - SchroCat (talk) 00:03, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Cut the rude introduction to every response.

Collectively they raomed the country, each gang roamed a fairly restricted area. But why this fixation on including such a minor gloss? Kevin McE (talk) 09:10, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

• Drop the battlefield approach and being so bloody didactic. Learn what consensus is and stop being so bloody difficult all the bloody time. - SchroCat (talk) 09:43, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I agree with SchroCat on the meaning of "roamed" (particularly since the blurb specifies where they roamed) ... but OTOH I don't have any objection to "roamed across the North Midlands" (see above), which might work for Kevin, and that isn't much of a tweak to the text ... I don't think anyone would mind. - Dank (push to talk) 22:31, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Roaming is not the significant action of this gang: I can't understand the apparent determination to preserve it in the blurb. Kevin McE (talk) 22:58, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't follow. I'd like to wait and see what Serial Number prefers. - Dank (push to talk) 23:13, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you don't follow: the important actions of the gang were murder, theft and abduction, and any roaming involved was simply movement between the scenes of their crimes. Kevin McE (talk) 23:39, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Okay, no response from SN so I'll hazard an edit here, to: "an armed group in the English North Midlands that roamed across the countryside". There's a (sometimes inconvenient) rule, more or less a Main Page rule, that the country should be mentioned early on; that was the reason for "English countryside". By moving "English" up, we eliminate the potential reading of "throughout England". Anyone else have thoughts on "roamed"? Are there any objections to waiting until the 16th, then bringing this up at WP:ERRORS and pinging the people who (probably) saw the blurb review? A range of opinions might be helpful. - Dank (push to talk) 20:51, 8 October 2019 (UTC) Also, I've removed "desolate" for now, since it's no longer in the article lead, but I'll raise that issue on the 16th. - Dank (push to talk) 21:17, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Desolate?

Not sure where the POV that the Derbyshire peaks are desolate comes from . Not explicit in the article, and not particularly foreboding when I have roamed there. Note that High Peak is the name of a district: it is not of particularly great altitude, nor does it have vertiginous peaks. Kevin McE (talk) 00:02, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree that the article text doesn't sufficiently support "desolate". OTOH, the image of Derbyshire in the article appears to support the definition, or at least the first definition at Collins: "A desolate place is empty of people and lacking in comfort." Nothing about foreboding. Serial Number: thoughts? - Dank (push to talk) 00:50, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

@Dank: KJP1 speaks for me; I seem to remember that Kevin McE is one of the few people that Iridescent has threatened to block this year. Apologies to both or either if I'm wrong: but if not, that also speaks for me. Apologies for the tardiness of my reply, by the way! ——SerialNumber54129 15:20, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

What does that have to do (if it is true, I really can't remember), with the inclusion of unsourced opinion in the blurb? Kevin McE (talk) 16:00, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Not a problem, we've got time. Okay, last month I added a "Day-after-tomorrow's FA" subsection at ERRORS, and it's still there, so I'll ping people and try to get more feedback early on the 16th. I don't think people are going to have strong feelings about this one, but I guess we'll see. - Dank (push to talk) 15:26, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

It's a non-concern, but the Peak District National Park describes itself as "desolate", [1], and Pevsner writes of "the forbidding grandeur" of the High Peak{sfn|Pevsner|Williamson|1978|p=19}, so I think the desolate nature of the Peak District moors is pretty well attested. KJP1 (talk) 11:10, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

But still an unsourced opinion in the article, so it shouldn't be there, yet alone in the blurb. Kevin McE (talk) 11:57, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Your view that the use of uncited adjectives/descriptive terms constitutes "unsourced opinion" is simply your view, nothing more. It is not one that enjoys universal support, as you found when you went forum-shopping on Chartwell and didn't get any. You would do better to assume good faith on the part of other editors, something you ask others to do in relation to your own contributions, accept that your opinions are not the only valid ones, and acknowledge that an encyclopedia with over 5.9 million articles can accommodate more than one acceptable writing style. KJP1 (talk) 16:09, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Where the hell did that come from? I pointed out that there was content in the lead, and therefore included in the blurb, that was not apparently supported by the body of the article. Kevin McE (talk) 16:43, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

As your personality compels you to have the last word, you might try having something worthwhile to say. KJP1 (talk) 21:11, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

How can asking a question amount to wanting the last word? And are you going to have the last word by providing a relevant answer to it? Kevin McE (talk) 16:03, 11 October 2019 (UTC)