Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Danuta Gleed Literary Award/archive2


 * 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 not promoted by The Rambling Man 11:58, 24 December 2012.

Danuta Gleed Literary Award

 * Nominator(s): Tomcat (7) 14:14, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

A short article about a short story prize. Regards. Tomcat (7) 14:14, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Oppose The prose in the lead was a concern at the last FLC and there are still issues. Here are a few examples:
 * "It recognizes the debut short fiction collection by a Canadian author in English language" doesn't really explain what constitutes winning the award
 * Please clarify--Tomcat (7) 12:09, 16 December 2012 (UTC)


 * "the Canadian writer Danuta Gleed, whose favourite literary genre was short fiction" that needs referencing
 * It is--Tomcat (7) 12:09, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Just because you say it is doesn't mean it's a widely known fact. You've been on wikipedia long enough to know these kind of statements need referencing. NapHit (talk) 01:56, 17 December 2012 (UTC)


 * "The incomes of his wife" incomes should be income, but even then its still not a professional standard of writing
 * Done--Tomcat (7) 12:09, 16 December 2012 (UTC)


 * "A similar award is the Journey Prize, which is given to a short story collection generally and is independent to any publisher." This sentence has no relevance to this list, we are talking about the Danuta Gleed Literary award, no need to mention any others
 * It has since both are similar.--Tomcat (7) 12:09, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It hasn't its irrelevant to this article


 * "The year's shortlist is chosen in May by the Union and is presented by the press,[3] while the prize is awarded in the early June." reads poorly
 * Not done, because I need suggestions, or explain what is poor.--Tomcat (7) 12:09, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Its the wording. You see this is the issue, because you're not a native English speaker you're struggling to see what is wrong. That's why it needs copyediting by a native speaker. I'm not going to provide you with a solution, when it was suggested last time you get the article copyedited, yet you either couldn't be bothered or ignored the advice. NapHit (talk) 01:56, 17 December 2012 (UTC)


 * "The varying jury"
 * Not done, since it should be stated that the jury frequently changes--Tomcat (7) 12:09, 16 December 2012 (UTC)


 * "The first winning work" again poor prose
 * Not done, because I need suggestions, or explain what is poor.--Tomcat (7) 12:09, 16 December 2012 (UTC)


 * "From 1999 to 2002, there were additionally two runners-up until the following years, when five people were nominated for the award, while the remaining three were not included as runners-up." again reads poorly and a little explanation about why some are runners-up and some are not would be helpful
 * Not done, because I need suggestions, or explain what is poor.--Tomcat (7) 12:09, 16 December 2012 (UTC)


 * "only five were qualified for the prize with two being the runners-up"
 * Not done, because I need suggestions, or explain what is poor.--Tomcat (7) 12:09, 16 December 2012 (UTC)


 * "From 2009 to 2011, there were no runners-up but the winner was directly picked up from the five nominees." comma needed after runners-up
 * I think it is not needed--Tomcat (7) 12:09, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It is the comma after 2011 sohuld be removed and placed after runners-up another example of why it needs a copyedit.


 * "The Danuta Gleed Award revived their traditional format, selecting two runners-up among five short-listed works." when? useless statement without a date
 * In the following years of course, and I know that this paragraph is pretty useless since it repeates what is already clarified in the table, but this process is not unusual.--Tomcat (7) 12:09, 16 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Entire last paragraph is unreferenced and there is a lot of info that could be challenged in that para
 * What exactly, since it repeats what is already noted in the table.--Tomcat (7) 12:09, 16 December 2012 (UTC)


 * You would be better off using green to indicate runners-up instead of th other writers as there is it will be clear that they were neither runners-up or winners anyway
 * Not done, your opinion.--Tomcat (7) 12:09, 16 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Avoid using semi-colon for bolding, as done in the key, use a table caption instead
 * Ok done.--Tomcat (7) 12:09, 16 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Unclear what is referencing the table
 * Not needed if there is a general reference. Totally redundant.--Tomcat (7) 12:09, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Where is the general reference? There is isn't one. NapHit (talk) 01:56, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but this list is nowhere near featured standard. There are too many issues with the prose, which was the main sticking point at the last FLC. Since the closure of the FLC, there have been four edits to the article, so evidently the issues from that FLC have not been fixed. This begs the question, why are you nominating this list when it is clearly not at featured standard? It really should be withdrawn and receive a copyedit from a native English speaker, something which was suggested at the last FLC! NapHit (talk) 02:32, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm going to add to this that this list really should be removed. At the last FLC, theditor was requested to get a copyedit he has not done so and the issues still remain. This is wasting reviewer time and affecting other nominations as efforts should be directed their instead of here. FLC is not a peer review process, which is something, the issues here are too many too fix in the time frame of the nom. It should be withdrawn copyedited and then resubmitted. NapHit (talk) 01:56, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No, since the list is pretty small and seems to be copyedited thanks to TRM comments below. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 12:12, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * TRM's comments are not a copy edit, they are identifying errors in the prose. This list needs to be copy edited by an uninvolved native Engkish speaker. That was made clear at the last FLC, so why you didn't follow up on this I don't know. He also mentioned issues about sourcing which have still not been addressed. I stand by my view this list should be withdrawn and copy edited. I'm also concerned that you continually puts lists like this up for nomination. You've been around the process long enough to know what our standards are, the lists you've no mimed recently have been short of that, mainly to prose issues. This should be indication in itself, you need to get these lists copy edited before you bring them here. This is not a peer review process, lists should come here close to featured standard not riddled with prose and source issues. NapHit (talk) 12:38, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Oppose too many flaws right now...
 * "It recognizes the debut short fiction collection by a Canadian author in English language." missing word here, the "best" debut short fiction collection perhaps?
 * Done--Tomcat (7) 14:10, 16 December 2012 (UTC)


 * "The incomes... funds..." (a) not sure why incomes is plural, but (b) if you insist, then it should be fund.
 * Done--Tomcat (7) 14:10, 16 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Journey prize is irrelevant and not referenced by [1] in any case.
 * Removed--Tomcat (7) 14:10, 16 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Besides, "is independent to any " you are normally independent of not independent to.
 * Removed--Tomcat (7) 14:10, 16 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Where is the prize money referenced in [2]?
 * Added--Tomcat (7) 14:10, 16 December 2012 (UTC)


 * "is presented by the press" do you just mean the shortlist is published in newspapers? Ref [3] says the nominations "were announced by the Writers’ Union of Canada".
 * Removed--Tomcat (7) 13:02, 17 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Ref 2 says award is going to be presented late May/early June. There's nothing to say when the previous prizes were awarded.
 * Removed--Tomcat (7) 13:02, 17 December 2012 (UTC)


 * "is awarded in the early June" no need for "the".
 * Removed--Tomcat (7) 12:48, 17 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Ref 1 does not cite the jury figures you've presented.
 * Added--Tomcat (7) 14:10, 16 December 2012 (UTC)


 * "there were additionally two runners-up until the following years" -> "there were two runners-up. From 2003..."
 * Reworded--Tomcat (7) 14:10, 16 December 2012 (UTC)


 * "only five were qualified for the prize" do you mean "five writers were nominated for the prize"?
 * Reworded--Tomcat (7) 14:10, 16 December 2012 (UTC)


 * " there were no runners-up but the winner was directly picked up from the five nominees" I think the second half of this is obvious if there were no runners-up.
 * Removed--Tomcat (7) 14:10, 16 December 2012 (UTC)


 * "The Danuta Gleed Award revived their traditional format" the award is not a group of people, so you can't say "[an inanimate object] revived their traditional format"...
 * Done--Tomcat (7) 14:10, 16 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Is it short list or shortlist?
 * "That year, only two books were put in the short list, the lowest result since the first ceremony." -> That year, only two books were shortlisted, the fewest in the history of the award.
 * Done--Tomcat (7) 14:10, 16 December 2012 (UTC)


 * "Publisher or publication" I don't see any publications in this list. If so, I would expect them to be italicised.
 * Removed--Tomcat (7) 14:10, 16 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Was Overqualified disqualified, withdrawn or removed? Be consistent.
 * Made consistent.--Tomcat (7) 14:23, 16 December 2012 (UTC)


 * It would be logical to identify runners up in green with the cross symbol, rather than the "other shortlisters", as the runners up are more notable.
 * On the other side, shortlisted works appear non-notable if not marked by color or symbol. However, will do as three people have suggested this.--Tomcat (7) 14:23, 16 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Where are the winners referenced? Ref 1 doesn't mention them, you need to link directly to the relevant winners page.  Also ref 1 links to pages that go back to 2003, what about the previous winners?  Oh and we don't use "external links" for this purpose...
 * Done--Tomcat (7) 12:48, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * you need to add publishers and access dates to those general refs. Also what makes Canadian authors.net a reliable source? You also to add a col scope to the publisher and after telling you not to use semi colons for bolding, you've done just that for the general and specific refs . They need to be removed. NapHit (talk) 13:03, 17 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Where are the 2012 nominees listed? I see no reference with Skibsrud mentioned for example...
 * Done--Tomcat (7) 12:48, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

The Rambling Man (talk) 13:13, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Please note that just re-using ref 1 dozens of times is not acceptable. Link the relevant year to the relevant page please. E.g. show me where in your URL for ref 1 I can find Skibsrud mentioned please? You also still have a number of rows which have blank ref cells..... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:13, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note that I am working on this list. Also note that you don't need to repeat the same arguments. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 12:01, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Then I suggest you withdraw this until you're ready to renominate once you've addressed all the changes required. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:10, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You don't need to force me into doing something.--Tomcat (7) 12:18, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No but I can fail premature nominations. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:28, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I cannot find Skibsrud listed either, it does not go to 2012. According to the page the latest is 2011. This matter of references containing the material is a repeated problem with these submissions. Tomcat7 added false citations to Friedrich Eckenfelder and has admitted to not have the material for the GA he nominated. More recently, I pointed it out to be corrected at Abel Prize. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:47, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, it seems like you have difficulties comparing what the source states and what the article claims. Reference 21, for example, clearly mentions his name and the date. And what happened on other pages is irrelevant. I suggest you eradicate the false accusations.--Tomcat (7) 23:04, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Your above disagreements aside, why then are you using reference 1 to cite Skibsrud, if his nomination is referenced in ref 21? Therein lies confusion.  The Rambling Man (talk) 23:06, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you please archive this? Regards.--Tomcat (7) 11:33, 24 December 2012 (UTC)


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