Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/World Fantasy Award for Life Achievement/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 via FACBot (talk) 23:34, 30 January 2016 (UTC).

World Fantasy Award for Life Achievement

 * Nominator(s):  Pres N  19:43, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Hey all, we're closing in on finishing up the World Fantasy Awards with this 9th World Fantasy Award list, #35 overall in our perpetual FLC series of sci-fi/fantasy award lists. This award list is pretty self-explanatory: a "lifetime" achievement award category; notable quirks are that the recipients don't have to be dead/retired (or even close to done with their career), that the winner is announced when the nominees of the other categories are, and that since 2000 it's been traditional to give out two awards per year, generally to an author and a non-author. The WFAs give no reasons for the winners but a list of names is boring, so I've added fantasy works the winner had done prior to winning, a la FLs Hugo Award for Best Professional Editor, John W. Campbell Award for Best New Writer. The formatting on this list is functionally identical to the other sci-fi/fantasy award lists, and especially so to the other WFA lists, and comments from prior FLCs have been incorporated here. Thanks all for reviewing! -- Pres N  19:43, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Support – well done and happy new year. --  Frankie talk 15:31, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley
 * " Individuals are also eligible for the Special Award—Professional and Special Award—Non-professional categories for their work in a given year not tied to a specific achievement." Several issues: 1. This seems out of place. The para is on the life award, here you go away from it and then come back in the next sentence. 2 Why mention these particular awards? Are individuals not eligible for other awards? If so, you should say so. 3. The word "categories" seems superfluous. 4. What does "a given year" mean? The previous year?
 * "before voting on the overall winner." "winners"?
 * "but at the 2015 ceremony it was announced that the award would not be made in future years". Presumably the statuette not the award - they were not ending the award altogether?
 * These points are minor. A first rate list. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:13, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Just cut the sentence
 * Specified that its the winner of each category
 * Clarified that its the statuette that's being dropped, not the category
 * Thanks for reviewing, I believe I've addressed all of your concerns. -- Pres N  20:24, 11 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Support. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:45, 11 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Support - Very informative and complete list, well sourced. I am concerned with MOS:ACCESS on the table (Specifically having row headers which allow screen readers to understand which year is tied with what), however; I don't have the ability to test it at this time... ~  Matthewrbowker  Drop me a note 02:14, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Note/Hint/etc. - I have my own FLC Candidate Mexican National Lightweight Championship and I figured giving is the best way of getting feedback.

Comments
 * Lead
 * "These have included authors, editors, and publishers." - I don't think everyone on the list falls in those categories. Ex. Frank Franzetta - who is an artist. The list makes it sound definitive.
 * "and a panel of five judges adds three or more nominees before voting on the overall winner of each category." - Who votes on the winners? I read it first as the panel of five judges, but earlier in that same paragraph it states "winners are decided by attendees and judges at the annual World Fantasy Convention." I think it would help to clarify which it is.


 * Table
 * So with this being a mix of authors and "others" would it make sense to actually have something to indicate if each recipient is an author, editor, publisher etc as part of the list?


 * Sources
 * Is the "Science Fiction Awards Database" a Reliable source??

That's all the issues I have seen, overall it's in great shape.  MPJ  -US 02:44, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Added "for example"
 * Works for me
 * Adjusted the first sentence to say that the attendees/judges pick the nominees; the judges are the ones who vote for the winner from the nominees.
 * Definitely clearer now.
 * Unfortunately it would be a mess; there's an awful lot of winners who were well-known for their editing but also wrote a book or two, or who edited a bunch of stuff and then founded a publishing house. It's impossible to say what they were most known for at the time of winning the award, and really hard to narrow it down even from a modern perspective. The whole column would be OR, and I'm stretching the line by including the "works they were known for" column, which does imply that somewhat.
 * I see the challenge that presents, I agree it's better to not do that in this case.
 * Yes, it's a project by Locus, the biggest sci-fi/fantasy magazine/trade journal there is. It used to be hosted on their website, but now it's on its own.
 * Excellent, thank you.
 * Responded below; I'll try to get to your FLC when I get a chance. -- Pres N  02:19, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * All good additions, I am going to say Support at this point in time. really great work.  MPJ  -US 03:09, 24 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Source review: Formatting is as per MoS, the references are reliable, no dead links and spot checks reveals no evidence of plagiarism or close copying.
 * There have been problems found in other reviews by this IP: review struck for the moment. - SchroCat (talk) 08:43, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Right, the referencing is pretty perfect, so I'm going to make some really nitpicky points.
 * Source review
 * Most newspapers sources just have the work (#1, #2, #7), but the Chicago Tribune reference (#3) also lists a publisher. Is there any particular reason for the difference?
 * For ref #4 the retrieved date should probably be updated to match the archived date. (I don't see a problem if the retrieval date is newer than the archived date though.)
 * Ref #19 has "pp. 448–449." while #20 has "pp. 994–5." – be consistent.
 * Spotchecks reveal no copyvio or close paraphrasing, and in each case the source provides the information cited in the article. My very picky points aside, all looks good. Harrias talk 10:21, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Removed Tribune publisher
 * Done
 * Fixed (994-995)
 * Done, thank you! -- Pres N  14:04, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Support on sources – To be honest, given how picky my points were, I was happy enough to support anyway, but all the better now! Harrias talk 14:35, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Just a couple of minor additional source points: Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 15:58, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The two books will need locations for publishers
 * FN2 probably needs a location – there are too many papers called The Star for easy identification
 * Both done, though I personally feel that book publisher locations are entirely superfluous, given the modern global/online economy. That a publisher is headquartered in New York City does not prevent a curious reader in Scotland from getting their eyes on the text, or vice versa. -- Pres N  16:15, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

– SchroCat (talk) 16:19, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.