Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/November 14, 2018

Last two sentences

Hi Dank, regarding your edits, while I like it more than your previous edits, I still prefer my version for the following reasons:

The fact that the Alhambra became Ferdinand & Isabella's royal court in 1492 is not cited and does not appear in the article. In fact, the Wikipedia article for Crown of Castile did not mention Granada as one of Castile's capital. Also, reading the article from the period following the annexation (e.g. Rebellion of the Alpujarras (1499–1501) and Forced conversions of Muslims in Spain), it seems implied that F&I did not settle in Granada, so I'm pretty sure that the Alhambra wasn't the Royal Court.
The point of these two sentences were to highlight Muhammad I's legacies: Founder of the Emirate of Granada which lasted centuries, and initiator of the Alhambra, which lasted until today. My version is written to do this, but your version sounds like it's about the takeover by Ferdinand & Isabella out of nowhere. HaEr48 (talk) 03:03, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Oops! I got that "Royal Court" part from Alhambra, but it's uncited there so I have no way to verify it. It's true that the Alhambra still exists today (and I visited it during my first year as a Wikipedian, in 2008) ... but I don't want to say it "exists", of course, that would make it sound pretty pitiful. And I don't want to use a meaningless term like "legacy". What can we say about the Alhambra that will make readers understand how important the site still is, even today? - Dank (push to talk) 03:25, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is part of a UNESCO World Heritage site [1].. Is that good enough? HaEr48 (talk) 05:23, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. - Dank (push to talk) 06:29, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm still not a big fan of the abrupt jump to 1492 after his death, but if you don't like adding the phrasing "lasted for several more centuries until... " I don't have a better suggestion. HaEr48 (talk) 04:31, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like it, no, but you're in luck: within the next few days, I'll put up a link at WT:TFA that's relevant. I'll create a page with a questionnaire where anyone can give their opinions on what does and doesn't represent unnecessary repetition of information in TFAs. - Dank (push to talk) 12:56, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I finally have a page to point people to: WT:TFA#Redundancy in TFA blurbs. I can't promise that will help, but it's a start. - Dank (push to talk) 04:06, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]