Talk:John W. Campbell Memorial Award for Best Science Fiction Novel

John W. Campbell Memorial Award for Best Science Fiction Novel is a featured list, which means it has been identified as one of the best lists produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
March 8, 2013	Featured list candidate	Promoted

Awards Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Awards, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of awards and prizes on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AwardsWikipedia:WikiProject AwardsTemplate:WikiProject Awardsawards articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Novels: Sci-fi High‑importance

	Novels portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.NovelsWikipedia:WikiProject NovelsTemplate:WikiProject Novelsnovel articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Science fiction task force (assessed as High-importance).

Science Fiction Low‑importance

	Speculative fiction portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science FictionWikipedia:WikiProject Science FictionTemplate:WikiProject Science Fictionscience fiction articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This and that

"Today" i revised this article heavily. Substantially i relied almost entirely on the Center for SFStudies, mainly one complex webpage. Scope and arrangement i have mainly learned from numerous awards articles here, and disseminated to others.

Here are some leftovers.

Does the current list of jury members have undue emphasis? Or is it appropriate for an academic award? (I simply rearranged each listing to put the panelist's name at the beginning, and deleted a note on recently replaced panelists that was copied from CSSF.)
Formal rules probably deserve a short section.
By my count there have been 41 "winners" and 73 runners up in 39 renditions 1973 to 2011. This doesn't count the special awards of 1973 and 1974 but it does count the 1976 award to a 1970 novel. There have been as few as no runners up (with one winner) in 1982 and 2001; as many as four (with one winner) in 1992.
Our brief note on the 1994 award, "no award because of a breakdown in the nomination process[citation needed]" should have clarification as well as citation. What sort of breakdown? How did the process generate two runners up, now officially second and third place?

--P64 (talk) 21:21, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The new section Multiple awards is simply a note that Frederick Pohl won twice. I skimmed the list and didn't notice another double winner, which is errorprone and should be confirmed (here in Talk space) or corrected by another reader or three. If he is not the only double winner, please correct his biography as well. --P64 (talk) 21:26, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

This list has a problem with notability. None of the sources are usable for establishing notability. They are primary references or connected to the subject (U of K) or a reference to another encyclopedia. There are no multiple reliable secondary sources per WP:GNG. I'm surprised it passed the FLC much less someone hasn't nominated it for WP:AfD. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 15:24, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Locus Magazine] lists it as one of the "major awards" of written scifi/fantasy. --Pres N 15:29, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's excellent, probably should be in the article. Since the list is dynamically updated it should be linked to Wayback so it remains available. I'll do it and see what you think. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 15:40, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article is still based mostly on primary sources. See WP:PRIMARY (policy) which says "Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them." What's needed are secondary sources for at least some of the yearly awards. -- GreenC 23:18, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article has 47 citations, of which 2 are to the organization that runs the Campbell awards. Even if you combined all the citations for the table into one, the UofK sources would still not be a majority. --Pres N 01:45, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. Somehow I thought Locus was associated with the award. They are secondary. -- GreenC 03:27, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in John W. Campbell Memorial Award for Best Science Fiction Novel

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of John W. Campbell Memorial Award for Best Science Fiction Novel's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Loc19":

From Andre Norton Award: "Nebula Awards 2019". Science Fiction Awards Database. Locus. Retrieved 2019-04-07.
From Arthur C. Clarke Award: "The Shortlist Has Landed! Announcing the 33rd Arthur C. Clarke Award for science fiction literature". Medium.com. Evan Williams. Retrieved 2019-05-07.
From Theodore Sturgeon Award: "Theodore Sturgeon Memorial Award 2019". Science Fiction Awards Database. Locus. Archived from the original on 2019-03-07. Retrieved 2019-03-07. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:21, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]