Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Caldecott Medal/archive1


 * 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 PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 30 August 2020 (UTC).

Caldecott Medal

 * Nominator(s): Barkeep49 (talk) 19:08, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Along with the Newbery Medal (already a FL), the Caldecott Medal is one of the two most prestigious awards in American children's literature. Winning the award can mean hundreds of thousands of copies of the book are sold. I look forward to the feedback offered by reviewers. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:08, 3 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:56, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm going to ping people who commented at the FL review for Newbery Medal in hopes that they might be willing to review here too. . Thanks for considering this. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:32, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the ping. I have already committed myself to three FAC reviews so I unfortunately do not have time at the present to help with this review. If this FLC is still up when I am done with those three reviews, I will try my best to come back here. Apologies for that. Aoba47 (talk) 18:39, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Comments from TRM
I'll submit this as part of my WikiCup contributions. That's it for me. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 10:25, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd be tempted to move those odd three refs out of the lead and into the main body. They look odd sitting there on their own.  Even the one on the quote as that's covered again in the main body.
 * I'm happy to do it. What's quoted there is identical to what I was encouraged to cite in the LEAD for Newbery Medal so I did the same here. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:49, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Sure, I think if we check MOS, it's fine to not cite quotes in the lead if the same quotes are used and cited in the main part of the article. If you'd prefer to leave it, that's not a major issue. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 17:18, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I had already made the change. I prefer "clean" LEADs personally. Let's see what others say :). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:08, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * "worthy runners-up," maybe "runners-up they deem worthy"
 * "runner-ups "Honor" " why isn't this "runners-up" as before?
 * The point here is that they explicitly changed the name from runners-up to Honor. I edited to try to make this more clear. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:49, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I meant runners-up vs runner-ups. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 17:18, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ Barkeep49 (talk) 15:08, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * "English and in the United States first and be " maybe "English, in the United States first and be " to avoid "and ... and ..."
 * "Publishers Weekly " should be in italics.
 * "changed and tweaked" these mean essentially the same things?
 * "simultaneously to " in?
 * "any honor books. Honor books may" repetitive.
 * The table calls them "Honor Books" be consistent with capitalisation.
 * "The annual number of runners-up has ranged from one to six, same as for the Newbery Medal during the same timespan, from 1938. Indeed, for twenty years from 1993 to 2012 there were two to four Honors every year." not sure this is needed at all, it's self-evident from the table I think.
 * "Nothing At All" -> "Nothing at All"
 * "who won two honors and the Caldecott Medal in 1950," this is confusing, he didn't win two "Honors books" did he?
 * "Both of Chris Van Allsburg's Caldecott winners have been adapted into films." unreferenced.
 * Check all captions are referenced if  they're making claims not substantiated in the list/prose.
 * For me, the row scope element should be the primary element, and that's the name of the illustrator, not the year of the award.
 * You're suggesting organizing the table by illustrator rather than chronologically? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:49, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * No, I'm say the  goes with the illustrator, not the year.  The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 17:18, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Listen I know how much I don't know about tables. I have no objection to this change, but there is scoping for each column right now not just year and it follows the practice at both Newbery Medal and the various Hugo Awards FLs (e.g. Hugo Award for Best Dramatic Presentation which have been my templates here. Unless I'm still not understanding. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:08, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It's no big deal. I know the cols have scope, that's fine, it was just the element you had selected for the row scopes, in my mind it's the most important element of information for each row, and that's the illustrator names, not the year, but I guess I should just be grateful there are scopes there at all! The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 14:04, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * "Multiple award winners" typically these tables are initially sorted by the number of awards, not alphabetical order.
 * Minor point, the source for the table has 2013 as retrieval year, but presumably it was accessed post-2013 for the post-2013 receipients!
 * New York Times Book Review. ->  The New York Times Book Review.
 * thanks for the review. I believe I have implemented all your suggested changes with one exception (and a couple assorted comments) above. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:49, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * seeing you around reminded me of this - are you still looking for changes before you can support its promotion? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:32, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Hey, sorry I missed this. I've added it to my backlog and will do my best to get back it tomorrow.  Cheers. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 22:40, 16 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Support my concerns addressed. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 14:04, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Comments:
 * "To be eligible for a Caldecott book the book…" --> "To be eligible for a Caldecott the book…"
 * "… the book must be published in English, in the United States first and be drawn by an American illustrator" is clunky (due to sentence structure, "published" is implied to precede each subsequent statement, which fails for the final "be drawn…" statement). My suggestion would be: "… the book must be published in English in the United States first and be drawn by an American illustrator."
 * "It can also increases…" --> "It can also increase…"
 * Generally, this article has a lot of missing commas. For example, this sentence feels like a run-on sentence due to lack of commas: "Until 1958 a previous winner could win again only by unanimous vote of the committee and in 1963 joint winners were first permitted." Or consider this sentence, which should use a semicolon and a comma after "however": "In recent years there has been an increase in the number of minority characters and illustrators recognized, however this is something which has fluctuated over the history of the award." These are far from the only examples, and further proofreading is needed here.
 * Additionally, you should also bracket appositives with commas on both sides. I also use commas after introductory adverb phrases; for instance, in the second example, I would follow "In recent years" with a comma, though this is based more on personal preference. For more, see MOS:COMMA.

—RunningTiger123 (talk) 19:30, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Use ' for the apostrophe in "Where the Wild Things Are's"
 * Remove double bolding for Marcia Brown in section Multiple award winners
 * Archive all online sources
 * thanks for your time. I have done all the wording suggestions you made and done my best go at addressing the commas. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:28, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Support — Cool, I know I wasn't super clear on the commas, which are fairly subjective anyway, and the rest of the grammar looks good. RunningTiger123 (talk) 23:30, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Source review - Pass
Doing now Aza24 (talk) 02:31, 25 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Why is there two commas for ref 1? Well actually for this one "Association for Library Service to Children" should be the author, "American Library Association" the publisher, 2018 for the year. The edition parameter is usually for "1st, 2nd, special, Anniversary" edition stuff so I wouldn't worry about that
 * Refs 2 and 4 are the same?
 * What is ref 6? A PDF or something? If so add "|format=PDF"
 * Do full date for ref 7 and needs retrieve date
 * What is 39–40 mean in ref 10?
 * It refers to the page numbers using |pages in the journal template. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:38, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Huh, that's weird that the template doesn't generate a "pp." or something. You could consider adding it yourself but it's probably fine without it. Aza24 (talk) 03:18, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Since ref 14 is in the NYT archive you should add the page and section numbers
 * Refs 19 and 20 missing dates
 * Ref 22 date needed
 * wrong date for ref 27?
 * What does "p. 55+" mean in ref 28? And is there a missing URL?
 * Both people in ref 29 should be listed as editors, |editor-last1= |editor-first1= |editorlast2=...
 * Ref 34 should probably be spelled out as The Wall Street Journal
 * Retrieval date for ref 33?
 * I would rather see the American Library Association and Association for Library Service to Children spelled out every time rather than abbreviated
 * You need links for The Reading Teacher, The New York Times, School Library Journal, Association for Library Service to Children, Publishers Weekly, The Horn Book Magazine, Curbed, Cambridge University Press, American Library Association, Tor.com, Hogan's Alley (magazine), The Wall Street Journal and Smithsonian Magazine otherwise the linking would be inconsistent

Thanks for doing this source review. I believe I have implemented your suggested improvements with the exception to the answer of a question above. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:38, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Looks good, I linked two publishers in the further reading section. Pass for source review. Aza24 (talk) 03:29, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Promoting. -- Pres N  20:53, 29 August 2020 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.