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 10:55 on 25 August 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. (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 Crystal Castles canceled their studio recording plans for "Not in Love" because they became attached to Robert Smith's demo vocals?

Seems to be close paraphrasing of this source (search for "attached"). Suggest the hookier: ... that Crystal Castles canceled their studio recording plans for "Not in Love" because of Robert Smith's demo vocals? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 05:31, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done BorgQueen (talk) 05:47, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gonzo fan2007, I think it would have been worth discussing this edit here at ERRORS before unilaterally changing the hook while live on the MP. Barring any obvious BLP problems or gross oversights on the part of the people involved, I don't think it was worth doing an end-run around their decision. The hook might be counterintuitive, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's not verifiable and interesting. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 09:51, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I concur with the decision to amend the wording. Other than possibly on April Fool's Day, we shouldn't be posting deliberately misleading hooks. "Donatello was not a Bardi" is incorrect, as his surname was Bardi.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:06, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Generalissima, Dumelow, and Z1720: Is anyone else concerned that Queen Anne Pool might have a notability problem? Three of its five sources are government-sponsored (on a public works project), and a fourth is a blog post. Is it worth pulling, or are the govt. sources fine and I'm barking up the wrong tree? And I don't think it'd count just because it's designated as historic... theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 05:15, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Theleekycauldron: Am I missing a guideline that says that government sources (from separate agencies in this case) don't confer notability? Footnote 3 of WP:GNG explicitly lists books and government reports as examples of reliable sources. The main source here is the report submitted to the LPB, which was put together by a private historical firm on behalf of the Queen Anne Historical Society; neither directly connected to the subject. I could have cited articles from the Queen Anne Historical Society or contemporary news coverage in the Seattle Times and SPI, but I felt that was unnecessary given how broad and comprehensive the report is. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 05:31, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Government reports are definitely reliable, but governments produce thousands of reports on their own public works on a regular basis – I think that'd count as non-independent. But yeah, while I guess the government publishing the LPB report technically makes it non-independent, I'm happy to IAR on that. The blog post should probably still be replaced, though. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 05:36, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The blog posting meaning the Arte Noir one? Yeah, fair point; I replaced that with the Queen Anne Historical Society. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 05:42, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Government sources can be reliable for content, but when considering whether WP:GNG is met, the sources used to establish notability must be independent of the subject. I agree with Leeky here, this doesn't seem (based on the sources mentioned) to meet the notability threshold. Much of the detail is cited to Pratt & Howard 2023, which I don't think is independent, given that the Seattle Landmarks Preservation Board is appointed by the mayor and council that owns this facillity. Similarly, Seattle Department of Neighborhoods 2024 and Seattle Parks and Recreation 1975 are connected to the city. The only independent source in the list is Mumford, but that isn't used to establish facts about the pool itself. I'd suggest pulling for now, and considering an AFD run, unless better sources can be found.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:14, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Schwede66, Yue, and RoySmith: I'm not sure this article is presentable enough for DYK. A huge portion of this article rests on sources connected to the subject, like his old university and the PGA and the U.S. Open – WP:RS requires that articles be based on independent sources. Also, a significant portion of the article is WP:PROSELINE statistics, which read really awkwardly and make the article feel half-finished. I think this should be returned to WP:DYKN for further work. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 09:45, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which article? Schwede66 09:47, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Self-trout sorry, should've specified that it's Max Greyserman :P theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 09:58, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"an arson" looks wrong to me - shouldn't that be "an arson attack"? wikt:arson says the noun is usually uncountable. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:13, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, thanks Stephen 07:46, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]