Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Nansen Refugee Award laureates/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 archived by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 24 June 2023 (UTC) [1].[reply]

List of Nansen Refugee Award laureates[edit]

List of Nansen Refugee Award laureates (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): CT55555(talk) 15:42, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I think it meets the criteria, and I think this is a list of fantastic people from all around the world and makes for interesting content. CT55555(talk) 15:42, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Nomader[edit]

  • Oppose for now until concerns are addressed. The criteria the list currently fails are 1 (Prose), 2 (Lead), and 4 (Structure). I'll address the points below -- I think this is a great start, but it needs some serious work to reach FL level.
    • 1. Prose: The article includes thoughts that are a bit off on formatting, particularly in the "award ceremony" section (the "In 2012" sentence as an example doesn't include a verb and isn't actually a sentence). This leads into the lead issues in the next bullet.
    • 2. Lead: FLs should have well-developed lead sections that clearly define the scope and inclusion criteria. An example of an award article that I think could be a good direction to emulate would be the Richard Dawkins Award or the Gabor Medal, both of which clearly give the criteria (or lack thereof) for the award in the lead and give context around its history and creation.
      • A list like this should really not have those other sections of prose -- I think they could be easily merged into the lead in an engaging way that would summarize the list nicely.
    • 4. Structure: The lists are unfortunately not sortable (see Help:Sorting or copy a format from another similar award list to see how to do it best). The regional laureates and annual laureates lists contain different columns for no seemingly particular reason -- I think consistency would work better here (although I think the headers make sense). It might make sense to borrow from those other examples that I showed which included a citation or summary of their work or why they were awarded (I just found an example for the 2021 laureate with a little searching here: [2]).

Just a note that I'm also submitting my review to the Wikicup. I think there's a lot of work to be done -- it's doable, but it'll be a bit of a lift. Ping me if you have any questions and I'll be happy to help answer them! Nomader (talk) 16:48, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I appreciate the way you've delivered the feedback, because that is actionable and gives me a path forward to improving the article further. I will try to make the improvements and if I do so, I will ping you again and ask you to reconsider the improved version. CT55555(talk) 16:56, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, please do! I once accidentally swapped all of my references in a list with over 50 of them and had to do a comprehensive spotcheck of them in an FLC, having issues that can be resolved happens all the time. Let me know if you have any questions as you're going through the page again. Nomader (talk) 17:36, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have taken action regarding each piece of helpful feedback that you have provided and I wonder if you would be willing to reappraise the list now? CT55555(talk) 21:48, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just saw this! Will take a look in the next couple of days, thanks for the flag here! Nomader (talk) 16:40, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm coming back to this based on @CT55555:'s response above. This is definitely an improvement in a number of ways, but it still needs some work. I've listed below where I think it can be improved still:

  • 2. Lead:
    • Although it's great that the prose has been condensed into a summary style in the lead, I think there's still a lot of context missing that I mentioned above. Why was the award initially established? Again, I think examples like the Richard Dawkins Award and to a lesser extent, the Gabor Medal show examples of how to approach this.
    • I think that the sentences appear a bit out of order -- maybe the nomenclature of the award could be added after the lead sentence somewhere along with an expansion of the award's history?
  • 3. Comprehensiveness:
    • I didn't bring this up specifically as a criteria that needed improvement before, but there's no context on why certain people received the award -- and I think that the list should include it (other similar awards like the Buchanan Medal, Crafoord Prize, and the Foot in Mouth Award all include this context). I've done some research and found press releases about each award member through Google (e.g., [3]), but I haven't found official citations that have gone along with it. I like the way the Richard Dawkins Award has a notes section which clarifies in a footnote that "This column broadly outlines the work and views of the recipient" because there is no official citation, and I think that style could be emulated here broadly.\
  • 4: Structure:
    • The lists are *much* better overall in terms of structure, thanks for adding sorting to it. Could you also make the images a larger size, similar to the other lists I've cited above? From a WP:ACCESS perspective, I'm concerned that they may not be viewable for the average person.
    • Images should also include ALT text per WP:ALT.

It's on the right track, but still has a good amount of work ahead of it so I'm still an oppose !vote for now. Ping me when you'd like me to take another look and I'll be happy to review! Nomader (talk) 18:56, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the actionable feedback. I've improved the lead, I've made the images larger, I've started adding rationales, have more to do, including the alt text. I'll ping you once I finish those tasks. CT55555(talk) 02:26, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All images now have ALT text. Rationales are still underway. CT55555(talk) 02:06, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)[edit]

  • Tables need captions, which allow screen reader software to jump straight to named tables without having to read out all of the text before it each time. Visual captions can be added by putting |+ caption_text as the first line of the table code; if that caption would duplicate a nearby section header, you can make it screen-reader-only by putting |+ {{sronly|caption_text}} instead.
  • Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. I don't return to these reviews until the nomination is ready to close, so ping me if you have any questions. --PresN 22:40, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for helping me make this more accessible! I have addressed this issue in both tables. Action on other feedback is ongoing. CT55555(talk) 00:03, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to go ahead and close this nomination. The oppose has been there for months without address or further review, and in looking at the list I see the lead is still anemic, while most of the "Office held, or rationale" column is empty leading to a table that is mostly blank space. --PresN 21:33, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
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/List_of_Nansen_Refugee_Award_laureates/archive1&oldid=1161632085"