Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/World Fantasy Special Award—Non-professional/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured list candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Hawkeye7 via FACBot (talk) 18:26, 14 December 2015 (UTC) [1].[reply]

World Fantasy Special Award—Non-professional

edit

World Fantasy Special Award—Non-professional (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): PresN 16:45, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey all, back again with the 8th World Fantasy Award list, and #34 overall in our perpetual FLC series of sci-fi/fantasy award lists. This list is the counterpart to the recent FL World Fantasy Special Award—Professional, and acts as the non-professional "other" category of the World Fantasy Awards, covering your editors of non-professional magazines, heads of hobby fantasy publishers, and general amateur contributors to the Fantasy literary field. If you saw/reviewed the Professional list, this is basically identical with different names/contributions. Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 16:45, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Harrias

  • "..and one of the three most renowned speculative fiction awards.." I assume this is meant to read "and are one" – if not, it certainly reads oddly the way it is.
  • "..fields related to fantasy that is.." "fields" is plural, so it should be "are", not "is".

Other than that, I really can't see much wrong with this. Harrias talk 16:55, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Harrias:
  • It was meant to continue on from "critics have described it as"; now has an explicit "as".
  • Fixed.
--PresN 17:02, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh, that first one does make sense when read like that, but it is more obvious now!
Comments from Hawkeye7
  • Looks good to me. The only comment is have to make is that it makes no mention of the objections that some winners expressed over having their home decorated with a bust of a racist like H.P. Lovecraft. As I understand it, the prize was changed two weeks ago so the paragraph is out of date? Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:31, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Hawkeye7: I didn't want to (though it's pretty clear why they did, the title in the citation makes it plain), since the WFC actually carefully didn't say why they dropped him, but I've now added that there were a lot of complaints about his pretty appalling racism. --PresN 19:52, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Wrestlinglover
  • Lead
    • Found no issues
  • Winners and nominees
    • Found no issues
  • See also
    • Found no issues
  • References
    • Found no issues, assume all are reliable.
  • External links
    • Found no issues
  • Support: I honestly didn't find anything out of place. Interesting article though.--WillC 09:33, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

  • "Winners were presented with a statue in the form of a bust of H. P. Lovecraft through the 2015 awards, though future ceremonies will present a different, unannounced statuette; while no explicit reason was given, numerous complaints had been raised regarding Lovecraft's suitability as a symbol, given his outspoken racism." This seems a bit clumsy. Also the source did not say that another statuette would replace it - indeed it did not say anything would, although that seems to be assumed. How about: "Until 2015, winners were presented with a statuette of H. P. Lovecraft, but at the 2015 ceremony it was announced that the award would not be made in future years. No reason was given, but many complaints have been made that Lovecraft is an unsuitable symbol in view of his racism. No announcement was made about a replacement award."
  • "R. B. Russell and Rosalie Parker have won four times out of eight and seven nominations, respectively, for their work at Tartarus Press." Perhaps: " R. B. Russell has won four times out of eight nominations, and Rosalie Parker four out of seven, for their work at Tartarus Press.2
  • A few other nit-picking points. I do not see why you use a coloured box and a star for the winner - I would use one or the other. Also some more information in the reasons box would be helpful. Presumably all not in italics are publishers but this could be clarified. What does "Scream/Press" mean? A publisher called Scream? In the publication names you might distinguish between magazines and one offs such as collections, criticism etc. However, I realise some of these suggestions may conflict with the house style you use in similar articles.
  • A first rate article. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:10, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Dudley Miles: Responses below.
  • Done, with minor modifications.
  • Done.
  • The color/star is because a) you can't just use color to distinguish something, per ACCESS, but b) just the star is hard to see for the majority of people.
  • As to the publishers- yeah, the reason column is worded the way the WFAs worded it, but it bases a lot on formatting. Books and magazines are italicized; everything that isn't is a company (such as a publisher) or plain words. "Scream/Press" is actually the name of the publisher, unfortunately. I've added a note to this effect to the column header. --PresN 15:44, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/World_Fantasy_Special_Award—Non-professional/archive1&oldid=1076196620"