Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors

Please submit error reports only for content that is currently or will imminently appear on the Main Page. For general discussion about the Main Page, kindly use its talk page.

National variations of the English language have been extensively discussed previously: Wikipedia does not prefer any national variety of English. While Wikipedia strives to use language common to all English varieties , some spelling, grammar, or terminology may differ or be absent in a reader's preferred variety. Refer to the relevant style guide on national varieties of English and see a comparison of American and British English.

To report an error in content currently or imminently on the Main Page, use the appropriate section below.

• Where is the error? An exact quotation of the text in question helps.
• Offer a correction if possible.
• References are helpful, especially when reporting an obscure factual or grammatical error.
• Time zones. The Main Page runs on Coordinated Universal Time (UTC, currently 15:10 on 4 October 2024) and is not adjusted to your local time zone.
• Can you resolve the problem yourself? If the error lies primarily in the content of an article linked from the Main Page, fix the problem there before reporting it here. Text on the Main Page generally defers to the articles with bolded links. Upcoming content on the Main Page is usually only protected from editing beginning 24 hours before its scheduled appearance. Before that period, you can be bold and fix any issues yourself.
• Do not use {{edit fully-protected}} on this page, which will not get a faster response. It is unnecessary, because this page is not protected, and causes display problems because this is not a talk page. (See the bottom of this revision for an example.)
• No chit-chat. Lengthy discussions should be moved to a suitable location elsewhere, such as the talk page of the relevant article or project.
• Respect other editors. Another user wrote the text you want changed, or reported an issue they see in something you wrote. Everyone's goal should be producing the best Main Page possible. The compressed time frame of the Main Page means sometimes action must be taken before there has been time for everyone to comment. Be civil to fellow users.
• Reports are removed when resolved. Once an error has been addressed or determined not to be an error, or the item has been rotated off the Main Page, the report will be removed from this page. Check the revision history for a record of any discussion or action taken; no archives are kept.

• ... that the Italian Campaign of 1796–1797 (battle pictured) demonstrated that Napoleon was a "great strategist"?: I was previously involved with this hook at DYK; the nominator requested a second opinion part-way through my review. There are a couple of problems here:

• One, this is a judgement of opinion dressed up as one of fact: we can't WP:VERIFY that someone was a great anything, only that they have been considered/described as etc that thing. Underneath, we have an example of how to handle this kind of statement: ... that Muhammad Khaznadar's museum was said to have "surpassed every other museum in the world" in Phoenician and Carthaginian antiquities?
• Two, it seems to break MOS:QUOTEPOV: the quote marks read as scare quotes.
• Three, the sourcing seems dubious: the website from which it originates (specifically, this page) is not exactly a scholarly source, and is essentially WP:SELFPUB: the page itself is a children's history site, and though the Fondation Napoléon has scholars on its board, I can see no evidence of any sort of editorial or academic peer review on the site itself. More seriously, the Fondation is fundamentally an advocacy group promoting Napoleon and his legacy, which is a problem when using it to "verify" a clearly promotional hook.

@RoySmith: courtesy ping to as the DYK reviewer. Also pinging @AirshipJungleman29 and Sir MemeGod: as promoter and nominator. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 06:33, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to know how to calibrate my RS meter sometimes. Not long ago, I got beat up for suggesting that https://www.naplesnews.com/story/news/local/communities/marco-eagle/2016/08/03/strange-but-true-andrew-jackson-and-cursing-parrot/87926936/ was not a RS. If somebody wants to change this to a "said to be" wording, I have no objection. RoySmith (talk) 15:09, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• ... that Lisa Blatt, the first woman to argue 50 cases before the Supreme Court of the United States, "elicits laughs and the occasional sharp response from the justices"?: another one from me on the same day -- the most obvious reading of this statement, as phrased, is that Blatt is viewed negatively: laughed at and occasionally censured. The rest of the quote puts it in quite a different light: who seem to enjoy Blatt's presentations as much as they respect her legal acumen. Given that the article is a BLP and the hook could have reputational (and so professional) consequences for a very real human being, I would advise pulling or a reworking under WP:BLPKIND. @SilverLocust, AirshipJungleman29, and DimensionalFusion: courtesy pings as nominator, reviewer and promoter. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 08:58, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  When I promoted it, it sounded like Blatt is enjoyed by SCOTUS. I'll be honest, I can't really see the negativity here; to me it makes her sound witty and respected DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 09:01, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The hook that I suggested originally could make it clearer that it isn't meant negatively:

  ... that Lisa Blatt is the first woman to argue 50 cases in the US Supreme Court—over 80% of them wins—and that she "elicits laughs and the occasional sharp response from the justices"?

  But I defer to others' discretion about hook phrasing. SilverLocust 💬 09:08, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I concurred with DimensionalFusion that that was too long, and I don't think it really solves UC's point above, but I also can't think of a phrasing that does. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:20, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  In that it would be strange to infer that the justices view her negatively if they side with her so often. SilverLocust 💬 10:59, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  For someone who has argued 50 cases before the Supreme Court, this blurb makes her sound childish and trivial rather than the accomplished attorney she must be. This isn't some county court where a local attorney tries to get a laugh from the judge, this is where life-changing court decisions happen. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:42, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• 1143 – The Treaty of Zamora - article is a bit short on cites and is a stub? JennyOz (talk) 06:37, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I swapped out this hook because it was used last year. Z1720 (talk) 14:49, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please report any such problems or suggestions for improvement at the General discussion section of Talk:Main Page.