Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Jnanpith Award/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 Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 23:30, 18 December 2016 (UTC).

Jnanpith Award

 * Nominator(s): and 

One of the most important literary awards in India. The list has gone through major changes recently and we believe that it follows the required guidelines to be a FL. Hoping to see some constructive comments/criticism. - Vivvt ( Talk ) 05:11, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Quite a few issues with the English, I have to say.....
 * "the award is bestowed only on the Indian writers who have been writing in Indian languages...." => "the award is bestowed only on Indian writers writing in Indian languages...."
 * Done
 * "The first recipient of the award was Malayalam litterateur" - what is a "litterateur"? I am a native English speaker and have never seen this word in my life
 * This is a word with French origin as per Oxford.
 * It must be a super super obscure word. For the benefit of readers not familiar with it, I would suggest using "literary experts" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:39, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Done
 * Still being used in two other places in the article........ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:58, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Done My bad! - Vivvt ( Talk ) 15:46, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * "who was awarded in 1965" => "who received the award in 1965"
 * Done
 * "The rules were revised for the forthcoming years to consider works during the period of last twenty years" => "The rules were revised in subsequent years to consider only works published during the preceding twenty years"
 * Done
 * "As of 2015," - we are now quite close to 2017, is this still true?
 * Thats correct. 2016 award is not yet declared. - Vivvt ( Talk ) 17:12, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * "to start a scheme in literary or cultural field" - I think just "to start a scheme" is sufficient, the fact that it was for a book makes it obvious that it was in the literary field
 * Done
 * "were invited in Delhi" => "were invited to Delhi"
 * Done
 * "Sampurnanand presided the committee" => "Sampurnanand acted as president of the committee"
 * Done
 * "The first Selection Board comprised of" => "The first Selection Board consisted of"
 * Done
 * "The works that were published between 1921 and 1951 were considered" => "Works that were published between 1921 and 1951 were considered"
 * Done
 * "translations of the work in Hindi or English" => "translations of the work into Hindi or English"
 * Done
 * "Every three years, an advisory committee is constituted for all the languages" => "Every three years, an advisory committee is constituted for each of the languages"
 * Done
 * "The language of the recent recipient's work is not eligible for consideration for the next two years" => "The language of the most recent recipient's work is not eligible for consideration for the next two years"
 * Done
 * "The Selection Board consists of maximum eleven and minimum seven members" => "The Selection Board consists of between seven and eleven members"
 * Done
 * "Having final authority in selection, the recipient for a particular year is announced by the Selection Board" => "The recipient for a particular year is announced by the Selection Board, which has final authority in selection"
 * Done
 * Hope this helps -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:54, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I have addressed most of your comments. Please let us know if you have more. 10:35, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - apologies for not returning here earlier -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:09, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks much for your comments and support. - Vivvt ( Talk ) 05:41, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Prose comments and source review - spot-checks not included That is all I could find. My concerns are not very serious and I am confident that the nominators will deal with them properly so I don't see the need for a revisit. Based on that, I am adding my support for the nomination's promotion. – FrB.TG (talk) 20:38, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * "cash prize of ₹1 lakh (US$1,500)" - I think it might be wise to not use the INRConvert template as it causes a problem for inflation. The date of the amount goes back to 60s and the date of conversion.... well. Besides, it's an international encyclopedia not American/Canadian/Australian...
 * worked on this. Hope thats correct.
 * "Malayalam writer G. Sankara Kurup" - I think using the definite article (i.e. the Malayalam writer) is more desirable in BrEng (I might be correct in assuming that it and IndEng are very similar) and should be used here and from herein.
 * Done
 * "chaired by Kaka Kalelkar" - just her last name will do since his name was mentioned in the previous para.
 * Done
 * "which also can be" better as "which can also be"
 * Done
 * Formatting - I personally wiki-link entries on first instance but I think Vivvt thinks another way.
 * Correct. :)
 * Ref 9 - I would remove Asian News International.
 * Done
 * Ref 13 - The Telegraph => The Telegraph (Calcutta). We have other versions too.
 * Done
 * Ref 15 - India Today; italics please.
 * Done
 * Ref 30 - perhaps consider removing Press Trust of India since you are inconsistent when it comes to this.
 * Done
 * Ref 33, 39 - ditto.
 * Done
 * Thanks much for your comments and support. - Vivvt ( Talk ) 09:12, 15 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Support my concerns addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:49, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x= Since this is becoming stale now I have asked for more reviews at the WP Literature, WP India and WP Awards & prizes. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 09:44, 5 December 2016 (UTC) =x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=

I saw your notice at WP Awards & prizes. My only question is why is this a Featured List and not a Featured Article? If it's a list then the emphasis is on the list of award winners. In which case we normally have separate articles for the award itself rather than trying to fit a full article into the top of a list. See Nobel Prize in Literature and List of Nobel laureates in Literature (Featured).

Suggest a separate article for the award, move most of the prose content to it, and rename this article List of Jnanpith Award winners. Otherwise what happens is once it becomes enshrined as Featured content in list format, it becomes difficult for future editors to expand the non-list portion without breaking its status as a list article (adding many sub-sections, extended content about controversies, third party reporting about the award on a year by year basis etc..) Once it's featured content, it becomes difficult to break off the list portion into a separate article from the article portion (about the prize) because there is 'community consensus'. Design it from the start around the assumption there will be future expansion about the award itself. -- Green  C  15:53, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * There never is a clear-cut demarcation of a list and article on Wikipedia, which is always a debatable issue and I suppose it is settled case by case, which also makes sense. Through various observations so far I and have been deciding on whether it’s a list or article simply based on the encyclopaedic content we can find, look at how it has developed and then seeing the size of prose opt for FA or FL.  Dadasaheb Phalke Award is one such FL where it does not have a separate parent article and the list is in it. Rajiv Gandhi Khel Ratna is similar example of FL, which has more text than DPA and also includes a controversy section at the end to mention some notable incidences. Likewise, Bharat Ratna (current GA) is another joint page but is treated as article for the large amount of prose present. Same is with Geet Ramayan (current GA) which is also basically by nature a huge list of songs but has more prose around it and is hence treated as article. Coming back to our subject topic, the content present now is more or less what will stay with minor changes related to the "most recent recipient". There have been no substantially documented controversies so far since 50 years of this award and any such controversies arising further can very well be documented in few sentences within this current format. But i would say that most of those controversies would not find way here anyways and would need to be removed as case of recentism and sloppy we-brought-it-to-you-first type of gossipy journalism. But as I said, we always have space for few condensed sentences if they really are worth it. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:35, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It's fine as it stands. There's no need to create a separate article, it just leads to massive duplication and parallel maintenance issues.  The Rambling Man (talk) 07:49, 6 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Spot-checks – I checked refs 25, 30, and 38, and found no verifiability concerns. Since that was the last outstanding item, I'll go ahead and promote the list. Giants2008  ( Talk ) 22:02, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Giants2008 ( Talk ) 22:12, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.