Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Turner Prize winners and nominees/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 not promoted by Dabomb87 16:25, 16 June 2009.

List of Turner Prize winners and nominees

 * Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (talk) 12:56, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I fancied a change. I haven't been able to set aside a lot of time to contribute more good content for a while, but things have changed, and when I saw the list in its original state, I was determined to improve it. I've never ventured so far out of my comfort zone with the subject matter and would love to hear thoughts on whether this cuts the mustard. All comments will, as ever, be gratefully received and attended to as swiftly as humanly possible. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 12:56, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Nice work, but I don't see the need for the gallery. It's a collection of pictures of arbitrarily chosen winners and nominees with no criteria for selection and no real information gain. Eklipse (talk) 09:37, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. The idea was to just make the page more visually appealing.  I have, in the past, run these sort of images down the right hand side of the list.  I'll see what others say but I'm happy to remove them.  The Rambling Man (talk) 11:04, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Comments
 * First, about the question raised above, I'd run them down the side if at all possible. They add visual appeal but I think the separated gallery leaves them lacking context somewhat.
 * I would add the last sentence of the lead into the list, with a note or something explaining that it just hasn't been awarded yet.
 * About the controversial nature of the prize, I could go for a little bit (not a lot) more explanation of what exactly the nature of the criticism is. Why do they think it's conceptual BS, that it has contaminated the art world?
 * If it's possible, the lead could use some information about how the awarding of it has effected the people it's been awarded to. Have they gone on to have successful careers? Did winning the prize lead to a significant increase in their art sales? In their work being selected by galleries?
 * Your lead says that between 2004 and 2007 the award was 40k, but the note on the table for 2004 says 25k.
 * Why not mention the name of the artworks the artists won for? Or is it more sort of a career award and rare to be able to point to a single artwork as with State Britain?
 * That's all for now. Geraldk (talk) 00:26, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks Geraldk. I'll fiddle about and see what I can do to address your comments.  I'll be back.  The Rambling Man (talk) 14:23, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, first run at the items you've mentioned - I've moved the images and gone for just the winners. Last sentence of lead has been incorporated into the table with a note and a new reference specifying precisely when the 09 award will take place.  I've removed the inconsistent award value.  As for mentioning the "artworks the artists won for", as you say it's based on an exhibition of work and thus is not a simple matter of just one winning piece.  The other two points you raise, i.e. more re:controversial nature and how it affected artists, I'll see what I can do.  The Rambling Man (talk) 14:33, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * For additional criticism detail, I've linked to the main section on Criticism on the main Turner Prize page - I think that covers it better and is a better location than here. As far as "what happened next" - there's a reference there already which links to an article about what became of past winners.  Nothing spectacular really.  I could bring this out as an external link and find a different reference should it be deemed a good idea?  Thanks for all your comments.  The Rambling Man (talk) 14:54, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Mostly there. I do feel that since this is a list of winners of a certain award, it is important to note whether winning the award has had a significant impact on their careers. If it did, that's important, if not, that's also important, especially given the criticism you've linked to in the lead. I know it can't be easy to reference... Any thoughts on how to address it? Geraldk (talk) 17:13, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Struggling a bit to be honest. It's very hard to quantify the effect of this award on already-famous artists.  My instinct is to suggest that it may have made them more famous worldwide (as generally the award has been given to Brits) but I'd need some definitive references for this.  I'll go look.  Thanks again for your interest.  The Rambling Man (talk) 17:33, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It won't prevent me from supporting, so if you come up empty-handed, don't worry too much about it. Geraldk (talk) 21:24, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Support now with improvements to lead. Geraldk (talk) 13:01, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Comments

Material moved to talk page per request.  Ty  10:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment I am surprised that there is no mention that the award is also enormously prestigious. The lead mentions that it is "the most controversial art award" and Prince Charles objections are also included - why no underscoring of the international prestige that generally accompanies the winner and the nominees and their subsequent careers? Modernist (talk) 11:53, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair, I'll go looking for some balance with some prestige examples, but as per above, it is difficult to definitively state that winning the Turner Prize actually affected their subsequent careers directly. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:59, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Support - Well done...Modernist (talk) 12:41, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:12, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Note that the dead link checker shows a couple dead links that are actually working. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:12, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * New York Times-->The New York Times (picky, picky)
 * You might consider a two-column reflist, but don't consider that a mandate. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:31, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment — Chris!  c t 04:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the Nominees column would look neater if you put names in bullet form
 * The dash for empty cells should be emdash, not endash
 * Perhaps, but bullet-pointing nominees would also unnaturally elongate the table. I'm not that keen to implement this as the main focus should really be on the winners anyway.  But perhaps we'll see what others think.  I will fix the em-dashes.  Cheers for your comments. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with nominees in list form, but better to use  to separate into lines than bullet points. This would shorten the width of the nominees column, and allow winners' names to be one one line on a low res screen (with images at the bottom, not the side - see my comment below). As this is a "List of Turner Prize winners and nominees", the nominees are just as significant to the subject as the winners.  Ty  11:38, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Comments  Ty  11:34, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * "has become one of the United Kingdom's most prestigious etc." Neater to say "is one of etc".
 * Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:08, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * "Originally there was no age restriction, but from 1991 it was restricted to artists under 50." Implies it was always for artists only. Initially it was for open to others such as critics and curators. This needs to be integrated with the passage "Initially the prize was awarded to the individual who etc".
 * Repetition removed, but most likely all will change soon when the lead is reworked. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:30, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * "The winner is chosen by a jury of four independent judges and the director of the Tate Britain". Might be better "four independent judges chosen/invited by the Tate and chaired by the director of Tate Britain." However, 1984-2006 it was chaired by the director of the Tate, 2007 by the director of Tate Liverpool, 2008 and 2009 by the director of Tate Britain. (Tate Britain didn't exist till 2000.)
 * "The award is accompanied by a prize of £25,000." Initially it was £10,000, doubled to £20,000 in 1991 with new sponsor Channel 4. Then later increased again. The rest of the sentence about the prize money is sloppy.
 * "A shortlist of finalists is drawn up and usually published about six months before the prize is awarded." This is what happens now, but I would like confirmation that it was published in this way in the early years. The Tate says, "In 1988 it was decided not to announce the shortlist publicly, and instead of an exhibition of work by shortlisted artists, the winner was offered a solo show the following year. In 1989 the jury published a list of seven 'commended' artists. The shortlist was reinstated in 1991, and restricted to three or four artists."
 * The prize is now awarded for a previous show held during the twelve month period preceding the choice of nominees, but this was not always the case.
 * There is a muddle per some of the above points because the prize has changed its procedures over the years. It should be clear as to whether a statement applies to the prize throughout, or only to its present form.
 * "has suffered considerable criticism". Perhaps "has received criticism".
 * Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:08, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * "including Prince Charles' letter of support to Kim Howells, who had described the Turner Prize as "conceptual bullshit". Prince Charles wrote of the award that "[i]t has contaminated the art establishment for so long"." Neater to avoid repetition (and give date also + Howells's position): "In 2002, after Culture Minister   Kim Howells described the Turner Prize as "conceptual bullshit",  Prince Charles wrote to him that "It has contaminated the art establishment for so long"."
 * Rephrased. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:36, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * "In 2008, the Stuckists art group etc." They have demonstrated annually since 2000 against the prize, not just 2008.
 * Added. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:30, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * "Several winners of the prize have won etc." Better at the beginning of the following paragraph.
 * "While auction prices for previous winners have generally increased, some artists, including Sarah Lucas and Julian Opie, have decided not to participate in the event." Two completely separate statements, not connected as implied by the sentence construction. Needs two sentences.
 * Paragraphs need structuring: 1) Intro 2) procedures, prize money etc 3) info relating to winners 4) criticisms (or something like that)
 * Pressure on nominees being in a "media circus" should be mentioned (see material now on talk page.
 * Reinstate photo of Tracey Emin, as she is singled out in the text and more memorable in the prize than most of the winners.
 * Okay. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:08, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Please view the page on a low res screen, say 800 x 600. It is then obvious why the images should be at the bottom of the page, not down the side: the table is horribly cramped.
 * I am viewing on a really low resolution (1024 x 768) and it's fine. Gallerys are discouraged generally, so we either have the images down the side or none at all.  I think 1024 x 768 is really low and 800 x 600 is used by virtually no-one.  The Rambling Man (talk) 14:08, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Previous discussions on the subject have pointed to the fact that in a world wide audience not everyone can update their computer, also that even lower res screens are in use, including mobile access to the internet. However MOS sets the benchmark: "800x600; all articles should look acceptable at this resolution".  There was confusion over "gallery", which had two different meanings: 1) whole page of images 2) gallery template(s)  within an article.  The former is not acceptable.  The latter has now been clarified as acceptable at WP:IG.  I haven't seen any lists with galleries underneath, but I do not see anything to forbid this usage either. However, per List of sultans of the Ottoman Empire another solution would be to reduce the image size (to 80px) and incorporate images in the table in the notes column (or else an image column).   Ty  01:34, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, but we have images of only three of the winners. The image column you are referring to would presumably only be for winners or would you have column(s) for nominees as well?  Winners only would, once again, remove Emin's image.  The Rambling Man (talk) 14:50, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * As we are not likely to get free images of all the winners, I think inclusion in the notes column at 80px would be best. Worth trying at least.  Ty  12:43, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Several refs don't have the date of publication, e.g. ref. 11, Daily Telegraph which is 13 Nov 2008.
 * All references do have the date of publication using the date field - check again! The Rambling Man (talk) 14:08, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * My mistake. I'm used to the format per ref 26: What's the point of the Turner Prize?". The Independent. 2 October 2007. http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/this_britain/article3019128.ece. Retrieved on 2009-05-31. (NB minor date format inconsistency there.)
 * Gotcha. As long as the dates are same format throughout all refs, it meets MOS.  The Rambling Man (talk) 14:50, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 1991 "Scultpure" typo.
 * Fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:08, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 2007 Seems an anomaly to just have one winning exhibit named in the notes column. Maybe some more notable ones also, e.g. Hirst.
 * Refs. Surely these should go by the material they are supporting, not in a separate column at the end of the line, as it's not clear which bit of the line they refer to.
 * Conventional for featured lists to use this approach. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:08, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * This would seem to be the case, though it's not as helpful as specific ref tied to specific information.  Ty  01:34, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Well on lists, there are so many facts in each row, i.e. you'd end up having to add a reference to each nominee's name, for instance. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:51, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'm revisiting this after checking out more at WP:FL and I see that some lists do not use a dedicated ref column, e.g. List of castles in Greater Manchester and The Libertines discography. Refs at the end of the row (or top of the column) would be OK if they covered all the material they pertain to, but this is not the case with the rows. Where there are two refs, it's not possible to see which one refers to which info. I also found some things that weren't covered at all by the ref(s) at the end of the row. I think this list needs to be along the lines of The Libertines discography, i.e. refs in column headings are appropriate for list of winners and nominees (assuming all came from the same source), but certain other info needs an individual ref.  Ty  12:40, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your extensive and honest comments. I would hate for my prose to be "sloppy" so I'll try to work all your comments into a complete revision of the lead.  It will be a couple of days before I can do anything substantial as I'm currently away.  I've made a couple of responses to some of your more straightforward issues.  Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:18, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Apologies for being blunt there.  Ty  01:34, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Ty, do you think moving the notes to a proper footnotes section would address some of your concerns over table squashing? It would remove the notes column, add some [nb 1] etc to the refs col and then send the information to below the table, expanding out the space for winners and nominees names.  It may make the images down the right-hand side more palatable for you?  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:06, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * See comments on images above. I think notes need to be in the appropriate row.  Otherwise it's very inconvenient for the reader going up and down the page all the time. The notes are invaluable for giving some identity and context to just a list of names. I'd be happy to see more info.  Ty  01:34, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The Format column needs some tweaking. 1984 "Painting". 1986 not painting. Tate's The Turner Prize book (TTPB) calls them "photo-pieces". Maybe "Photomontage". 1989 TTPB says "Sculpture". 1995 "Conceptual" redundant, implied by "Installation". 1998 "Painting (mixed media)" is a succint way of defining it. 2001 "Installation" technically. 2002 "Installation, painting". 2004 "Video, installation".  2005 "Installation". 2006 "Painting". 2007 "Installation". 2008 "Sculpture, film, sound, performance". I think that's the basics, which could be refined further.  Ty  02:06, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Quickly, my apologies for not attending to your extensive and comprehensive review 100% as yet. I've been away and now I'm home I'm exhausted - your comments deserve my full attention and I hope you'll be prepared to work with me on the lead to assure your satisfaction.  I'm not at all convinced that images in the notes column will work so we need to find a resolution to that.  For such a prominent list, we need to get as close to perfection as we can but we also must consider that there's a main article which could (could) contain some of the more generic material discussed here.  However, as long as I am able, I will endeavour to improve the list up to featured status.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:19, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem whatsoever. Don't feel under any time pressure, as far as I'm concerned - I prefer a slower pace - and let me know if I can be of any help. I tried out images in the notes column. I think it works much better like that.  Although there can't be images for every year, I feel that having some will draw the reader into what would otherwise be a stark table, and help them to locate where they are in it. There are some other suggested changes, which will be apparent from the diff.  19995 - nominees to be sorted alphabetically.  Format column to be sortable. Some extra notes, particularly about artists previously nominated. Non-breaking spaces in key names, so Winners and Nominees columns display each name on a single line. The mention of Madonna is one thing that could be left to the main article.  Ty  01:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Withdrawn per this. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:24, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


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