Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/John W. Campbell Memorial Award for Best Science Fiction Novel/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 Hahc21 10:01, 8 March 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]

John W. Campbell Memorial Award for Best Science Fiction Novel[edit]

Featured list candidates/John W. Campbell Memorial Award for Best Science Fiction Novel/archive1

Nominator(s): Pres N 19:50, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Right on the heels of the Theodore Sturgeon Award's FLC comes its older brother- the Campbell novel award, for English-language scifi novels rather than short stories. It serves as the second "Campbell" award, thus the long article title, after the John W. Campbell Award for Best New Writer. This list is based on the Sturgeon list, and I just went through and added in the fixes requested by the reviewers there. Thanks for reviewing! --Pres N 19:50, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support, high quality, well-cited page, though it'd be really nice if someone could create articles for the redlinks, at the very least make them some helpful stubs with descriptive text and just a few references. :) — Cirt (talk) 17:23, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

The notes section is empty
You should follow direct quotations with citations (namely "..."small enough to discuss among its members all of the nominated novels" but look for others).
" Since 2004 winners have received a personalized trophy, while since the inception of the award a permanent trophy has recorded all of the winners." -- this could use a little more clarification and a bit of a copy edit. Where is this permanent trophy kept? The second part of the sentence seems unnecessarily difficult to convey the information to readers (not a fan of the wording).
Thoughts on adding a note about tied winners to the lead? I find it quite interesting the current holders share the award. Ruby 2010/2013 18:48, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All of the above done. There were ties as well in 1974, 2002, and 2009; there's nothing in the official records as to why, especially seeing as there's 9 voters on the panel right now. --Pres N 00:03, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I didn't get back here soon. I have given the article another thorough read and don't see any issues that would bar promotion. I support this nomination. Well done! Ruby 2010/2013 01:59, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 20:39, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Just need to be aware of the comments made at the interminable Russian Booker Prize nomination in which opposition was given to both the concept of the list and the use of primary sources. It may be that the editor in question doesn't contribute here, but it's worth being aware of the concerns etc raised there.
"in the prior calendar year" prior -> previous?
"138 authors have had works nominated, 40 of whom have won" 40 authors or 40 works?
Starfish just redirects to the author...

The Rambling Man (talk) 21:45, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All done. Hopefully I'm fine on the Booker thing, at least the Primary sources complaint; My cites are all to Locus magazine's site rather than to the Campbell site specifically to avoid things like that. His other concerns are unanswerable, as far as I can see- it's a fundamental disagreement on what an FL is. --Pres N 18:27, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your quick response. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:29, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support The Rambling Man (talk) 20:39, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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