Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/World Fantasy Award for Best Artist/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 SchroCat 07:55, 25 March 2015.

World Fantasy Award for Best Artist

 * Nominator(s):  Pres N  22:06, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Hot on the heels of World Fantasy Award for Best Anthology, which just passed, comes FLC #32/? in this eternal series, and #6/10 for the World Fantasy Awards: the World Fantasy Award for Best Artist. Given since 1975, it's the fantasy literature community's award for the best fantasy artist of the year. The list itself is a combination of the other World Fantasy Award FLs, and my prior FL Hugo Award for Best Professional Artist (which is the equivalent award for the science fiction/fantasy Hugo Awards). As always, I've incorporated comments from prior FLCs, such as last time's suggestion to merge the "year" cells together, so hopefully this should be smooth sailing. Thanks all for reviewing! -- Pres N  22:06, 18 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Support I've read the lead and compared it the other lists in this series and it seems this is up to their standard. The list could perhaps use a few pictures illustrating some of the art to give the reader a taste of what this award is rewarding, but as it is now, it looks clean. I only have a minor quibble: the other lists appear to wikilink every winner, even if there is no page to link to at the moment. I think that approach would be useful here, so that if pages are created in the future, they will automatically link to this soon to be featured list and vice versa. Nice work! Mattximus (talk) 15:23, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I've now redlinked the winners; thanks for reviewing! -- Pres N  22:52, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Support A comprehensive and well-written list. Just one minor point (optional): you have used rowspan for years which seems pretty good, I was wondering if you could do the same with the references. But since its fellow lists follow the same format and this one is written after them, I leave it on you. -- FrankBoy (Buzz) 16:22, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I left the references un-rowspanned for consistency, since for some other lists individual lines might have different references; I also don't like moving from left to right going non-rowspanned to rowspanned, as I think it makes it visually confusing. Thanks for reviewing! -- Pres N  19:09, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. If you could have a look at one of my noms. :) -- FrankBoy (Buzz) 19:14, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Crisco comments
 * book critics such as The Guardian - The Guardian is a newspaper, not a critic
 * I still think preceding works better than previous for "calendar year" (I swear I've brought this up before); having one "preceding" also avoids repeating "previous" later on.
 * For art (which is predominantly visual), must we add the clarifier "in English"?
 * Repetition of "prestigious" in the second sentence. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:23, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Changed to "sources"
 * Swapped all previous calendar years to preceding calendar years- looks like you haven't suggested "preceding" before, though you did once express confusion on whether previous meant the prior calendar year or the last 365 days.
 * Dropped it; the "English" was meant to refer to the written works also mentioned in the sentence but since the article's about art/artists it's not so important.
 * changed
 * addressed your concerns. Thanks for reviewing! -- Pres N  18:18, 17 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Support - Looks ready! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:13, 17 March 2015 (UTC)


 * - SchroCat (talk) 07:40, 25 March 2015 (UTC)


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