Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Twenty-five Year 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 not promoted by Dabomb87 00:14, 21 August 2011.

Twenty-five Year Award

 * Nominator(s): Found5dollar (talk) 23:55, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because i feel it is complete and of a topic that is under represented in FL. There are a few red links, but that is to encourage the creation of those pages as opposed to just leaving the topics unlinkedFound5dollar (talk) 23:55, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, stupid question time. Why is this notable?  There's all of one citation to any other body than the one that awards the award.  We need more independent sources to establish notability, though I've no real question they could be found. Courcelles 01:32, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It would be very easy for me to add more references to this list, but they would only be re-referencing stuff the main reference link does. I could add more filler in the opening paragraphs with fluff from other reliable sources, as there are tons, but I feel that that would degrade the quality of the opening. It was much easier, and more reliable, to reference the AIA's own list it keeps on its webpage instead of individually referencing each years award with a different news article saying that building got an award that year. This sort of relying on primary sources seems to be very common with award featured lists such as Rumford Prize ( 2 refs not from the awarding body), List of Nobel laureates in Economics andList of Nobel laureates in Chemistry (1 ref each not from Nobel), just to name a few. I don't think you would say that the Nobel Prize in Chemistry isn't notable because only one cite is from a source other than the Nobel Commitee's website. --Found5dollar (talk) 03:57, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Notice, though, that List of Nobel laureates in Chemistry clearly establishes the notability of the subject in the parent article, Nobel Prize in Chemistry. This has no parent article, so we do need to establish the notability of the subject; an award that no one but the awarding body bothers to write about should not have an article, and this article appears like one of those as it stands. Courcelles 04:05, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I have added in more references from varied reliable sources.--Found5dollar (talk) 13:02, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Comment... Just a few little things from a general point of view:
 * In the first sentence, it should be exemplify instead of exemplifies. Since that's not exactly what the quote says, you should put the word in brackets.
 * done


 * Also, according to the MOS, punctuation marks like commas and periods should generally go outside of quotation marks.
 * done


 * "Buildings with Eero Saarinen as one of the architects..." seems a little clunky. I'd like to see it reworded.
 * done


 * "...and Ludwig Mies van der Rohe has been honored for three of his buildings in America." It should probably be United States instead.
 * Done


 * And the the red links are bothering me. Are FLs allowed to have red links?
 * I have stated above why i left the four or so red links. I am also not sure if they are allowable, or if i just should unlink them. --Found5dollar (talk) 12:31, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I hardly know this process at all... Am I allowed to edit this article myself? Does that mean I surrender my right to support it? I still see a few more niggling points I'd like to clear up... Bobnorwal (talk) 02:30, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * If you want to help copy-edit the list, you're more than welcome to. Just say that you did so when you go to review further or support.  Giants2008  ( 27 and counting ) 19:06, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, let me comment on a couple of the things above. If the source has punctuation inside the quotation marks, it should be that way in the article (haven't checked on whether that's the case). And the FL criteria allow for a "minimal proportion" of red links. It's questionable as to what percentage is acceptable, but the current five red links seems reasonable to me. Anyway, welcome to reviewing! We always need more people checking articles and lists at these processes.  Giants2008  ( 27 and counting ) 01:35, 8 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment Alright, I've taken another couple of looks over this article. Notice, I made a couple more small copyediting changes. I'm just about ready to pledge my support but I have a question. Maybe it's been addressed already... but, what about the entries that don't have images? I'm not sure the rules on that... it's not really a deal breaker for me. But, hopefully, pictures could be found and added, someday? Bobnorwal (talk) 00:11, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I have always been under the impression that as long as a picture can be added in the future, and that a minority of the entries are missing images, it is ok. There does not seem to be a written FL rule on the subject.--Found5dollar (talk) 16:56, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support, then... It really is a nice article. Honestly, I don't know why more people don't hurry up and pledge their support. It seems like a no-brainer, really. Bobnorwal (talk) 18:17, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


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