Talk:Adam Nadel

Awards
Apologies for the very belated follow-up, but I'm not convinced your edit here is an improvement. To my mind, WP:NOTCV gives good reasons for avoiding decontextualised lists of achievements, and WP:PST tells us to avoid sections based entirely on primary sources. If Nadel's prizes have been covered in independent relible sources, they can be included in the article in prose, but in the absence of that coverage I don't find the existing material encyclopaedic. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 14:34, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi. That seems a harsh and wrong interpretation to me. Let me explain. World Press Photo is a very notable award, as is Pictures of the Year International but I think not in the same league. I create Awards sections for many articles on photographers as it's a useful place to locate them rather than cluttering up the prose sections.
 * WP:PRIMARY appears to instead say to "be cautious about basing large passages on them". And "Primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care ... A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." All of this seems in keeping with their use here.
 * WP:ANYBIO requires for notability that "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times". If there were no secondary sources for the awards, then we would still be listing notable awards with only primary sources, as a means by which to demonstrate notability.
 * In the case of WikiProject Musicians/Article guidelines, which I suggest is not too dissimilar to a photographer, it specifically recommends a dedicated Awards section. Coming after the Discography section, I presume that this is also a list section. -Lopifalko (talk) 14:24, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:PRIMARY's advice to "be cautious" definitely applies here. We have a top-level section (in a short article) that only cites primary sources. I'd struggle to think of a more straightforward case of a "large passage" based on primary sources. I don't see any need to advertise that WP:ANYBIO #1 is met when WP:BASIC is clearly met. I also think a bit of precision is useful here. World Press Photo isn't a notable award, it's an organisation that bestows awards. World Press Photo of the Year is a notable award, but not one that Nadel has won. The awards he has won, while very laudable and noteworthy and all the rest, aren't themselves notable.
 * I hope there's some sort of middle-ground to be had here – I don't doubt at all that you're trying to improve this article and appreciate your work on photography topics more broadly – but short of turning up some secondary sources I'm not sure what that would look like. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 13:51, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I respectfully disagree. In my estimation, a first prize in a category of the World Press Photo contest is a notable award. The overall outstanding winner of the contest, the World Press Photo of the Year, is extremely notable, but not the only notable award in the World Press Photo contest. I also think that between your poles of World Press Photo, and World Press Photo of the Year, lies the World Press Photo contest and that is what is meant when "World Press Photo" rather than "World Press Photo of the Year" is listed in an awards section. -Lopifalko (talk) 15:10, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I've replaced 1 of the primary sources with sources from BBC News and CBS News. -Lopifalko (talk) 15:17, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
 * This is definitely an improvement, and I'm glad you had more luck finding sources than I did. I'm happy to leave this for now and see if anyone else weighs in. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 16:40, 3 November 2023 (UTC)