Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/March 11, 2020

Today's change to the blurb

@J Milburn, The Huhsz, and SchroCat: sorry to bother you three with this on short notice, but your opinions would be valuable here. This is currently on the Main Page. The blurb was just changed to add "various archaeologists have argued that the stone may have formed part of one such structure [a chambered long barrow]". We intentionally left that out of the blurb because the lead also says: "An archaeological excavation of the site led by Paul Garwood took place in 2008–09; it found that the megalith was only placed in its present location in the 15th or 16th centuries. The archaeologists found no evidence of a chambered long barrow at the location, and noted that the Coffin Stone might once have stood upright in the vicinity." Presenting the former theory without the more recent and better supported theory seems unbalanced to me, and it appears that we don't have room to present both ... but maybe it's possible we could say just a little bit about both theories, I don't know. The blurb shouldn't go over 1025 characters ... it's 996 now. Suggestions? - Dank (push to talk) 15:28, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I was a little confusing ... I meant something like "presenting the older theory without making it clear it's been superseded". - Dank (push to talk) 18:23, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

I think the current blurb reads well; various archaeologists suggested x, an excavation found y. Part of the significance of the stone comes from the fact it was (perhaps wrongly) assumed to be part of a barrow. Tagging Midnightblueowl, in case she hasn't seen this. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:31, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm not really sure, to be honest. We could add something about it "formerly" having been thought to be a chambered tomb, before adding that excavation found no evidence of this. Would that help? Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:35, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

I think it's fine. I think this was a good edit. --The Huhsz (talk) 16:48, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Any objections to MBO's suggestion of "formerly"? - Dank (push to talk) 17:05, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

None from me. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:07, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, I've raised the suggestion of adding "formerly" at WP:ERRORS. - Dank (push to talk) 17:11, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

I'd concur with adding "formerly"; obviously the challenge here is to produce a blurb that does not misrepresent the subject without necessarily having to pin down every last nuance. I find blurbs maybe err in this latter direction sometimes; a blurb is a summary of a summary and as long as we avoid creating an unencyclopedic "tease" factor, does not need to be "complete" or comprehensive. It cannot be, in 1000 characters. --The Huhsz (talk) 17:16, 11 March 2020 (UTC)