Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Russian Booker Prize/archive2
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 Giants2008 18:07, 18 August 2012 [1].
Russian Booker Prize[edit]
Russian Booker Prize (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
| Toolbox |
|---|
I am nominating this for featured list because I think it meets the criteria.Kürbis (✔) 10:03, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments from Crisco 1492
- "Now established as the country's premier literary prize," - Do you need "established" here?
- Removed
- "is currently British journalist George Walden." - currently should be some variant of "as of", perhaps using {{as of}}
- I don't know the exact date
- The date of the source would be useful. i.e. "as of 2011 British journalist George Walden is currently..."
- "It is the first Russian non-governmental literary prize since the Russian Revolution in 1917." - That's a heck of a claim for a self-published source. Anything independent?
- The Soviet Union was state-owned
- Indeed nearly everything was, but it's still not good practice to cite a non-independent source for this claim.
- Why not just wikiink short list (and maybe long list, but it's a redirect) and avoid the scare quotes?
- Done
- US$20,000 - As of?
- Since its establishment
- No, I mean as of regarding the conversion rate. Rubles to dollars can change drastically in a matter of months, let alone years.
- "each of the shortlisted finalists earns US$2,000." - They receive US$ or rubles?
- The source states that they receive 2000 in US dollars.
- "signed a five-year contract to sponsor BP. " - Did BP sponsor, or did the Booker people sponsor BP?
- The first
- Perhaps "with sponsor BP" then.
- The first Russian Booker Prize was awarded to Mark Kharitonov for his novel Lines of Fate. - This is kinda jolting since you talk about sponsors for the rest of the paragraph. Move?
- Done
- "The first won the award posthumously." - Perhaps say the name of the author?
- Done
- Rubén Gallego becoming the first non-Russian and first disabled recipient should be cited
- None of the winners were disabled, excpet him
- This was a hangup at the last FLC. It appears general consenus is that it should be cited. One of the references you've already included seems useful.
- A paragraph about notable firsts may be useful.
- That's it from me — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:34, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from TBrandley (talk) 09:07, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
|
Oppose
- "modeled after the Booker Prize and inaugurated in 1992 by English Chief Executive Sir Michael Caine." -> "modelled after the Booker Prize. It was inaugurated by English Chief Executive Sir Michael Cine in 1992." Note modelled has two l's not the one currently used
- still see the original sentence in use
- "Now the country's premier literary prize..." this implies it did not used to be what was before? A claim like that needs referencing as well.
- I removed the "Now". There were awards which may have been more notable, but as they were state-controlled and biased (the writer's stance on Communism was more important than his talent) it is disputable whether they really were.
- I would add this source to the comma after "The country's premier literary prize" as this is something that could be challenged. NapHit (talk) 13:19, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No point in having official Website in info box and then having the link as official website, just use the url without the pipe, also it should not be Official Website, but Official website, it is not a proper noun as you stated above
- "Each year, the jury of the contest chooses from among all the participants..." clumsy wording, but afterwards about a long list then a short list is confusing as well, does that mean it goes to a long list then onto a short list? or is the long list the short list? Sentence needs work
- "around 500 rubbles" do you not have the exact amount? would prefer, monetary figures afterwards do you use around, so guess they are exact, why isn't this one?
- "but the prize money increased in the course of the years till the 2011, when the winner received a cash prize of 600,000 rubbles" another poorly worded sentence change to "this has since increased to a sum of 600,000 rubbles in 2011."
- "is
theliterary effort" - "while the length was not a criterion; there were even works with just 40-60 pages." this is not featured standard writing, should be a new sentence and change to "Length is not a criterion, as books with between 40 and 60 pages have been nominated"
- I don't think P.A. Smirnov is the sponsor, I think you mean Smirnoff, the drinks company is the sponsor
- "The committee signed a five-year contract with sponsor BP." when did they sign the contract? you then go onto say the prize ran into funding problems and introduce a need sponsor what happened to BP?
- "The Russian Booker Prize changed its format in 2011." An elaboration on this would be nice
- This is stated in the winner section. They now chose the book of the decade, not the book of the year. Thanks for your comments. I believe I fixed all points except noted. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 09:58, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Still think this could be elaborated better, the way its currently worded makes it sound like a different prize
Further comments
- We have the first two paragraphs, which are quite sizeable, with just two references at the end of each para. This is not enough, and not what I would expect in a featured list
- It is cited
- Especially when we have "Initially proposed for novels only, the Russian Booker Prize included, especially in the first years, other formats such as the novella.." something which definitely needs citing
- It is cited
- The first paragraph reads awfully, really hard to follow, the sentences don't flow, you just seem to be listing random facts about novels (which are not referenced), and then moving on to the next novel. Needs a thorough copyedit
- It is cited
- The whole of that section needs copyediting, I would suggest you withdraw the nomination, as I don't think that can be done in the timescale of this nom.
- Removed
- Ref column should be unsortable
- Unsorted
- The image captions could be a bit more descriptive, for instance "Ruben Gallego, whose novel Black on White, won the award in 2002."
- Removed
- ref 6 and 11 do not provide ISBNs
- Rev 6: not found; Ref 11: removed
- ref 13 does not give the author
- Do you mean lenta.ru? It does not state the author
- You've probably removed the ref I was referring to when you got rid of the winners section. anyway what makes Lenta. ru a reliable site. NapHit (talk) 16:45, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Lenta.ru is a Moscow-based news website in Russian language, owned by Rambler Media Group which belongs to Prof-Media. It is considered one of the most popular Russian language online resources with over 600 thousand visitors daily.
There are too many issues with the prose in the winners section to list here, really needs a copyedit. I would withdraw the nom and take it to peer review or WP:GOCE to get the prose cleaned up, because there is too much for it to be fixed here. NapHit (talk) 13:19, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
-
- I would seriously considering withdrawing this list, you've now changed the format twice in the space of this nom, which could make it fail criteria 6. This should not happen at FLC, I think the nom was premature I would definitely take the list to a peer review. NapHit (talk) 16:45, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This was done because Crisco proposed "A paragraph about notable firsts", which "may be useful". Then I added a section, but I realized that it is too detailed, so I decided to remove it completely. The criteria states that a major reconstruction is not welcomed "except in response to the featured list process." I also don't understand why it should be peer-reviewed. Peer review is usually for large articles which are aiming towards becoming featured. If I put this there, it will either be ignored or I will be laughed down. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 17:20, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I would seriously considering withdrawing this list, you've now changed the format twice in the space of this nom, which could make it fail criteria 6. This should not happen at FLC, I think the nom was premature I would definitely take the list to a peer review. NapHit (talk) 16:45, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.