Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Shortlist Music Prize/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 The Rambling Man 15:47, 13 February 2010.

Shortlist Music Prize

 * Nominator(s): RB88 (T) 01:24, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Let's see what the FLC fuss is all about. Like the award, modelled on the Mercury Prize. RB88 (T) 01:24, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Support I made a few copy-edits to the lead, but the list otherwise looks good. One thing: I saw that you changed "won" to "were successful". I know that close repetition in prose is usually frowned upon, but I think the parallel structure makes the repeated "won"s work here. Also, the current phrasing might make the reader think that "were successful" means something different from "won". However, it's a not a big deal. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:23, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I know, I know, repetition is a pet peeve of mine. I tried to find a better synonym, but that's all I could come with. Although, I think that following the sentence's initial clause before the colon, it should be clear we're talking about winners. Plus win is used three time in that same sentence just in case there was any ambiguity. RB88 (T) 23:28, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Good points. Like I said, the issue is not a big deal, and your explanations are satisfactory. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:32, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Support - I can't find anything and think its a pretty solid job. Afro  ( Not a Terrible Joke ) - Afkatk 11:53, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Cheers. RB88 (T) 06:26, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Support Mm40 (talk) 19:28, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Cheers. RB88 (T) 17:07, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments from 
 * General
 * Dabs, links, contributors, and alt text check out fine.
 * Lead
 * Per MOS:BOLD, don't bold other names that aren't the title of the article. If you want to emphasize a name, use italics or quotations. The other names aren't really synonyms since they were one time names.
 * DONE. RB88 (T) 20:57, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, re-read WP:MOSBOLD, it says alternative names can be bolded..., to whit: "The most common use of boldface is to highlight the article title, and often synonyms, in the lead section (first paragraph). This is done for the vast majority of articles, but there are exceptions. See Lead section – Format of the first sentence for in-depth coverage." The Rambling Man (talk) 21:11, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but the other names aren't really synonyms, they are one time names. Like Grammy awards and Grammys are synonyms.-- T ru  c o   503 23:08, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I've started a discussion about this at Wikipedia talk:Lead section. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:31, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * TBH, I'm not that fussed. I doubt it removes or adds much. RB88 (T) 22:19, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Change this sentence to: The majority of the seven winners so far have been singer-songwriters: Irishman Damien Rice won in 2003,[3] Americans Sufjan Stevens and Cat Power were successful in 2005 and 2006, respectively,[4][8] and Canadian Feist won in 2007. --a comma is needed before respectively.
 * DONE. RB88 (T) 20:57, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Theres no explanation (in any source) as to why it was stopped in '07?
 * Because it hasn't, that's why it says "is an award". There's been no news about its end. It's more of a hiatus (probably because of the recession). RB88 (T) 20:57, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I would probably state that, or it will make the article sound a bit outdated.-- T ru  c o   503 23:08, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Added a hiatus note in the box. There aren't any specific sources, so what the text says is what's available really. It sums it up pretty well in my opinion. RB88 (T) 22:19, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Table
 * Shortlisted is in terms of the name of the award or in general like they were on the list but didn't win?
 * Works both ways really (and accurately). RB88 (T) 20:57, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, gotcha.-- T ru  c o   503 23:08, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * External links
 * No template for the winners?-- T ru  c o   503 01:40, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Does that really affect the decision for an article to be made FA or FL? I would put it if it existed but really cannot be bothered to make it. If someone does, then fair enough. RB88 (T) 20:57, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Template/category (pref) would be fine, but has no bearing at all on this FLC. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:11, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It was just a suggestion that would enhance the article but not affect its FLC.-- T ru  c o   503 23:08, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Support -- previous issues resolved; now meets WP:WIAFL.-- T ru  c o   503 23:46, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.