Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/July 21, 2021

Image

This image means little to most readers: I have restored the image that was at TFA/R for over a month, and discussed on talk for about a year, as the article is running on the 70th birthday of Robin Williams, the best known person with LBD. See Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Dementia with Lewy bodies: the idea is a medical topic with date relevance. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:35, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The date goes with the pic of Williams. The alternative is just a lab slide and an article on what may be an obscure disease to many. -- Colin°^Talk 13:04, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have time to fully discuss this but this selection is very questionable. Using his image as a hook is in poor taste while I can't think of a single policy or guideline forbidding it.

Also, we use Williams image too often Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 6, 2021 --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:59, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SandyGeorgia and Colin: I review every image that comes thru TFA and I am certain this is going to cause issues at WP:ERRORS. I recommend getting support for this at Talk:Main Page and avoid a blow up on the day of. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 18:05, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like it would be useful as well for those who look at TFA images to also look over the TFA requests - fewer surprises for everyone involved that way. Hog Farm _Talk 22:44, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blowups at ERRORS can be avoided by encouraging those who populate TFA errors to start following WP:TFAR, which is where TFAs are chosen with plenty of time for discussion. The few vocal complainers at ERRORS are a good part of why many editors no longer want to be bothered with FAC, as TFA has become so unpleasant. I realize you are strapped for time, C&C, but it would help if you could elucidate what the problems are in this specific case: in past cases, the “problems” were not problems at all, and in the absence of any policy or guideline, I am at a loss for how to respond. For example, the kerfuffle raised over Buruli ulcer was a non-issue involving a few vocal complainers although the TFA was one of the most highly viewed TFAs of that month, and most viewers expressed no concern. @Ajpolino, Ceoil, Colin, Jimfbleak, Wehwalt, Aoba47, Hog Farm, Panini!, Gog the Mild, Ergo Sum, Graham Beards, and WhatamIdoing:; those who participated at TFAR and on recent medical TFAs. We have TFA, and TFA Coords, for a reason; perhaps the ERRORS regulars should start following that page. The last three TFAs I have been involved in, with socking and kerfuffles such as at Buruli, have been enough to convince me that improving Featured content may not be the most productive use of my time. I wrote the article two years ago with the idea it would be appropriate for Robin Williams’ 70th birthday as a way to engage more viewers with medical content; please explain the problem. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:15, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That image is tricky to interpret even for me who has seen loads of hematoxylin and eosin stained microscope slides. It will completely lost on 99.999999% of our readers. Dementia is about so much more than a slice of stained tissue on a microscope slide – it's about the loss of a personality. The photograph of Williams adds much more. Graham Beards (talk) 22:11, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree with Graham Beards here. The proposed alternate image means nothing to most - but the image of the prominent sufferer known for his personality when the disease causes loss of personality, mentioned in the blurb, on his birthday, will be much more meaningful to almost everyone than the microscope slide. Hog Farm _Talk 22:42, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Coffeeandcrumbs, maybe it would help if you could explain why you believe that it's poor taste to use a photograph of a person affected by a disease. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:11, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What is the point of TFAR and TFA coordinators if a major change to an article can be made on a whim because they don't like it. I've been watching this for the best part of a year, it's been through TFAR, and I selected it nearly a month ago. If there is a problem (and there isn't), why wait until now? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:08, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In my early days on Wikipedia, I worked on a number of "List of people with XXX" articles. I only got into it after discussion led to moving a list out of the Epilepsy article into List of people with epilepsy. There was an earlier featured List of people with brain tumors by Durova, which encouraged me to push the epilepsy one to FL. I then worked with two other people on lists concerning Hepatitis C and Polio. I know some people find those lists distasteful and have even tried to get some deleted, but if you ever pick up a book on a disease, no matter whether that book is aimed at a lay audience or professionals, you can be sure that the introduction or preface will mention the famous and historical figures affected. To those readers closely affected by the condition, it can be an important message you are not alone. People care far more that some famous singer was "just like them" than being told prevalence statistics. And to other readers it helps to form links in one's mind that connect a random disease with real people they "know". Despite being very common, dementia with Lewy bodies is not well known. Photomicrographs are similarly not well known. So there's no hook here for anyone to look or remember this by. Instead, if it sticks inside someone's head because of a neuron-neuron connection with a famous actor then job done. -- Colin°^Talk 07:58, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It strikes me that our main concern for TFA should be to engage readers of the main page. A stain of a Lewy body likely means very little to average readers, and does little to entice them to read the article. Why should they care? It is rare to have a case study that so aptly explains a condition. In the case of DLB, we have a very recognizable person whose death has so much meaning for the condition because, as is typical, he was misdiagnosed AND because the press badly misreported his death, leading most people to attribute it to depression. There cannot be a better example of how all of the issues that come with Lewy bodies, and are so misunderstood (by physicians and laypersons alike) were part of Williams’s death. Why would we not use such a good example when we have one— one that can cause readers to have an “ah-ha” moment? Our goal is not only to engage readers, but also to encourage editors to write and improve more content (including medical), rather than discourage them, right? I have more discouraging attempts at TFA than encouraging, which makes it easier to understand why FAC is declining. Perhaps more FAC regulars should start following WP:ERRORS, just as more ERRORS people should start following WP:TFAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:51, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, if you all are fine with it, who am I to stand in the way? --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 13:49, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Coffeeandcrumbs, you've done us all a service by predicting a potentially preventable problem. Thank you for that, and I hope you don't feel like a Cassandra because of the response.

I wonder whether it would help the ERRORS situation if that page were reminded that MEDMOS favors including (only) "those individuals who have lastingly affected the popular perception of a condition". WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:38, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For example, Robin's Wish. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:04, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And

and so much more. Like Michael J. Fox with Parkinson’s, Robin Williams’s death left a profound mark on understanding and public perception of Lewy body diseases. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:30, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Copyedit reverted

Not an improvement. For example, no known cure is redundant to no cure; the sentence is in the present tense. In RBD, people act out their dreams; blurbs are constricted by character count and the detail is in the article. Please discuss. Also, copyeditors might be encouraged to approach WP:TFAR as blurbs as proposed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:59, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Link?

@SandyGeorgia and Colin: I wonder if it's worth linking autopsy in the blurb? While I wouldn't want to claim that it's unknown in BE, post-mortem is more common over here. Not a big deal though Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:34, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds reasonable to me (unless someone else disagrees). WhatamIdoing, I, and others have (also) long considered the need to repeat some wikilinks more often in articles with lots of technical terms and the Lewy body terminology is dense enough that more repeat links in the article could also be warranted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:42, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. -- Colin°^Talk 13:20, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]