Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hugo Award/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Ucucha 15:25, 24 September 2011 [1].

Hugo Award

[edit]

Hugo Award (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): PresN 04:52, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all, back again, but not with a video game-related article! Instead I bring you the Hugo Awards, the premier awards for science fiction and fantasy written works. I've spent a lot of time over the past year and a half working on all of the articles/lists related to the Hugo awards, and this article is the capstone. There aren't any FAs (or GAs) about literary awards, so I've had to strike out on my own for this one. The prose is as polished as I can get it, the links are live and archived, the image is free, and it's ready for inspection. Oh, and I'm in the Wikicup. Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 04:52, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:39, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Be consistent in whether authors/editors are listed first or last name first
  • Be consistent in whether you include locations
  • Are FNs 4 and 5 the same source? Check for duplicates
  • Why the different formatting for Locus versus Wired?
  • Why do FNs 34 and 35 have different titles but the same everything else?
  • Page numbers for FNs 40 and 42? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:39, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done, except the last, google books doesn't have page numbers for FN40 (though the chapter is only a few pages long) and I could only get snippet view for FN42 (though it's a review of a book in a magazine, it'll be in the index if you want to look it up.) --PresN 06:12, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Atomician

  • Could a table not be made of the HA categories section, it's looking quite bare. Name | First awarded | What it's awarded for...
  • In the Award section, some of the content there is exactly the same as in the lede, could some changes not be made to differ from it?
  • "The 1953 through 1958 awards" Seems rather vulgar, The awards from 1953 to 1958 maybe...
  • "in April through July" Same as above.
  • "Worldcons are generally held near the start of September, and are held..." repetition should be removed.
  • Ben Jason needs a link (to Benedict Jablonski) in Award section
  • "That year the category for Best Related Work" Rather than "that year", in the same year? In 1980?
  • Minor note: The image caption needs a full stop.
Does it? See WP:MOS#Formatting_of_captions Graham Colm (talk) 22:06, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, thanks for directing me to that, I wasn't aware. Atomician (talk) 22:43, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome :-) Graham Colm (talk) 22:45, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very informative article, Atomician (talk) 22:00, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done, except for: I fail to see how "through" is vulgar, it just indicates that the range includes the final year, while "to" is ambiguous. --PresN 22:52, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
#Shrugs rather meekly# It seems vulgar to my English ears. Atomician (talk) 22:59, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It might be useful to elaborate on what "Works that have won the award have been published in special collections" means. ceranthor 00:34, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

  • Award: "The World Science Fiction Society give out the Hugo Awards each year for the best science fiction or fantasy works and achievements of the previous year." Thinking that "give" should be plural here, as I'm having trouble seeing the group's name as a plural element.
  • History: "While 'bests' had been voted at all Worldcons since the inaugural event in 1939". Seems like it should be "voted on", but I'd go another way and make it "chosen" or "selected".
  • Little redundancy in "The awards presented that year were initially conceived as 'one-off' awards". Would be better without the two "awards" uses in such close proximity.
  • Retro Hugos: "There have only been three Retro Hugos given, at the 1996, 2001 and 2004 Worldcons for 50 years prior". Reads like three awards total were given, rather than awards for three years. Don't believe that was the intention.
  • "the five eligible in 1997–2000 and 2002 chose not to award them." Could be made clearer that this refers to Worldcons.
  • Hugo Award categories: Since article titles aren't supposed to be repeated in section headers, calling the section Categories would work better.
  • Ref 13 is missing the month of archival.
  • In ref 30, the pp. should be p. since this is a single-page cite.
  • Big concern is the number of primary sources. Out of the 42 cites, I count 26 that are primary (25 from WSFS and one to a Worldcon program). For FAC purposes, this is a very large portion of primary sources. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 17:32, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • All done. The WSFS rules and old constitutions are used extensively to source the history sections, but aren't being used to establish anything aside from historical facts and changes to the rules. --PresN 02:45, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments – reading through and jotting notes below: Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:33, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Hugo Awards are given every year for the best science fiction or fantasy works and achievements of the previous year. - reads funny with two "year"s in it - nonetheless, alternatives are not easy - possibly change former to "given annually" or "given yearly", or latter to "previous twelve months" ?
The awards presented that year were initially conceived as a "one-off" event, - why the quote marks around one-off?
More - looks good overall (got sidetracked last night) - I wondered if there was any commentary or information on the positive impact the award might have on book sales (about the only possible information not in the article, otherwise looking good for comprehensiveness and prose. Haven't checked the references yet. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:46, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if I'm following you- the second-to-last paragraph has all I could find on the effect it has on sales/publishers; I was unable to find any concrete numbers for sales bumps after a Hugo win/nomination, just some statements that there is one. --PresN 00:31, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Gah! Sorry about that/my bad - missed that bit - if you've found all you can find then that's fine. Over the line for prose and comprehensiveness. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:38, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support with comments

  • Like someone noted above, I'm also not a fan of "The 1953 through 1958 awards". It just doesn't flow very well
  • Not a fan of the extra long sentence in the recognition section (LA Times, Wired etc.). Try splitting it up or adding semi-colons
  • ..."though Orson Scott Card said in his 1990 How to Write Science Fiction & Fantasy that the award..." His 1990 what? Book? Article?

--Ruby comment! 02:38, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support

  • Nice work. I couldn't find anything much to complain about from a prose perspective except to add my voice re. "The 1953 through 1958 awards" -- what'd be wrong with "From 1953 to [or "through" if you must!] 1958 the awards..."?
  • Structure, referencing and supporting materials look fine.
  • Content/detail-wise it just looks a tiny bit thin to me -- are there no controversies or standout moments in the history of the awards/presentations to include? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:04, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • As per above, changed the "through". No reliably-sourced controversies; every year there's some grumbling about which books get nominated, whether certain categories should remain, and so forth, but nothing I've found above the level of forum comments. --PresN 05:53, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mmm... Yes, I had a squizz through a couple of my SF history books and about the only thing was Aldiss in Trillion Year Spree gently criticising the Hugos as recognising the most popular works rather than the best, and contrasting it with the Nebulas, which originated as a more literary based award system. Worth adding, perhaps after the Nebulas are mentioned in Recognition? Regardless, happy to support now. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:38, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sure thing. After describing the establishment and development of the Hugos, he goes on to say that "what was being voted for was the most popular and acceptable, not the best piece of category fiction for that year" (his italics). He then describes the Nebulas thus: "It was to be a counterweight to the Hugos, providing a more literary judgement on that year's crop of fiction. Often the two awards overlapped, an indication, perhaps, that a work was well-honed as well as popular. Or so the theory went." Aldiss, Brian (1988) [1973]. Trillion Year Spree: The History of Science Fiction. London: Paladin. p. 349. ISBN 0586086846. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthor= ignored (|author= suggested) (help) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:40, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much! --PresN 16:19, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Media Review The sole image is a retouched derivative, but the original is gone. Could someone please restore the original? Sven Manguard Wha? 02:56, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support—Overall it looks good. I would like to have seen more about why Hugo Gernsback in particular was chosen to be honored by this award (rather than, say, H. G. Wells). Hugo did have a somewhat negative opinion among certain writers. But I didn't have much luck tracking that information down myself. Perhaps it was simply because Gernsback was an American, whereas Wells and Verne were not? Those were the 1950s, after all. At any rate, as it stands, I think this article satisfies the FA criteria. Thanks to the authors for putting this together. Regards, RJH (talk) 22:06, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I am sorry to be late commenting on this; I've been on vacation and have only recently been able to look at FAC. I feel the article is not as comprehensive as it could be. Some examples:

  • No use of Franson and DeVore's "A History of the Hugo, Nebula and International Fantasy Awards". This gives a history of the differences in award categories year to year, which I believe should be in the article, for example.
    As with the point below this is better than I realized when I reread last night; sorry for being too quick off the mark. I will go back through Franson and DeVore and see what else might be useful. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:41, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no mention of categories that don't exist any more. For example, there used to be a "Best short fiction" category which was awarded in years when novellas and novelettes had no separate award. This is not covered in the article.
    I missed this in my quick read last night; this is indeed there -- sorry. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:41, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Now checking Franson for specifics and the article appears incomplete; I will add specific details below. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:25, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it should be possible to tell from the article what categories of award were given in what years.
    Without going through each year I can't be sure it's complete but again, rereading this morning I see that this might be possible. Can you confirm it's a complete list? I would suggest that some form of list or table would be helpful to the reader here; for example I think I should be able to tell what the awards were in a given year, and that's not easy at the moment. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:41, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I've added another table, for the awards which are no longer awarded. This is basically the "Best Professional Magazine" Hugo and all of the ones listed in Discontinued Hugo Awards. Between the two, I think a reader should be able to tell what awards were in what year, and I can confirm that this is every official "Hugo" award ever given and avowed by the WSFS. --PresN 00:58, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Nicholls/Clute Encyclopedia of SF gives additional nominating details that don't appear in the article -- for example according to Nicholls, the nominations between 1959 and 1962 were not limited to Worldcon members but were generally available.
  • Nicholls also covers criticism of the Hugos, which is not covered by the article.

I am out of time tonight, but will try to go through my sources and see if there are other areas where the article could be expanded. I hate to oppose so late in the process, but I'll be happy to try to fix the problems if possible -- I'd like to see this pass. The "library" link in my sig links to a list of my sf reference books; let me know if there's anything I can look up for you. I will try to come back to this in the next day or so. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:18, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I took another look this morning and have modified my comments, above, having realized I made a mistake or two. I am still concerned about comprehensiveness and will see what else I can find that might be useful. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:41, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Examples of categories not mentioned: "# 1 Fan Personality" and "Best Interior Illustrator", both in the first year.
  • Franson credits a fan named Howard Lynch with the original conception for the awards (not the design of the physical award, but the idea of having an award at a Worldcon). I think this should be mentioned.
  • An additional detail from Franson: from 1960 final votes were restricted to Worldcon members but nominations were open to the public until 1962.
  • Franson reports that per P. Schuyler Miller the reason there were only 6 categories in 1960 was that there were only 6 of the original rocketships left, though he gives some reason to doubt if this is a true statement.
  • Franson lists a special Hugo voted on by the committee given to Hugo Gernsback in 1960; this is not listed by WSFS so some more research might be useful on this one.
  • Franson also gives details of the history of the fan awards, which were not going to be Hugos at first, but were changed into Hugos by the con committee. This should be included.
  • More from Franson:
    • The definition of eligibility as the prior calendar year was not codified till 1959; this required a rule about winners in 1958 that were published in 1958.
    • There were not always five candidates in every category, as the article says.
    • Miscellaneous rule changes of possible interest

-- Got to go; more when I have time. Sorry about the screw up on my original comments; I read the article too fast, but I do still think there are comprehensiveness issues. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:25, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note to delegate: Mike's oppose above is based on 2 sources he thinks I should use; I've bought the books and should have them by this weekend and fixed the issues a few hours later, so please don't close this nomination early. Thanks! --PresN 22:26, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi -- I would never stop anyone buying sources, but I'd have been happy to give the info to you, so please don't buy anything else I mention unless you really want to! I also plan to look through some other sources and see what I can find. How about if I promise to do the work of getting the material out of the sources I find -- in a sandbox if you prefer -- and then you and I can figure out how/if to integrate it into the article? If you're OK with that I'll stop commenting here and start adding material to the article or to a sandbox as you prefer. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:49, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you're willing to do that I won't say no! The books will be interesting so I won't cancel my order, but it would be really great if you could put the info on the article's talk page or a sandbox. Thank you very much! --PresN 23:10, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's a deal. I'll post to the article's talk page. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:26, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I've added in what you've posted so far (aka the Franson book). Thanks so much for that! To your above query- the WSFS defines the Hugo Awards as the awards that got voted on; awards that were given out by a convention without voting are "special awards" (2nd-to-last sentence, Categories section) regardless of what the trophy looked like and this article doesn't cover them. (nor does the Discontinued Hugo Awards article.) I might make a list covering them at some point, though their history is a bit hazy. --PresN 19:39, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Added in what you posted today. This adds three new non-primary sources in total, hopefully helping to assuage the concerns of the editors above. Also de-bolding my statement above to the delegates, as this section no longer looks like a massive un-worked oppose. --PresN 04:16, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note- I've gotten to everything by Mike above this comment. --PresN 18:21, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments:

  • The mention of Hal (Harold) Lynch should also mention that the idea of the awards came from the Academy Awards. Google Books will give you a couple of citations for this.
  • The given source does not support the statement that "'bests' had been selected at all Worldcons since the inaugural event in 1939".
  • I would like to see more specific details about the history of the rules, drawn from Franson. For example, I think it's important to understanding the history of the awards to know that initially anyone could vote, and that this was later changed to restrict voting to Worldcon members. Similarly the introduction of rules on who could nominate is important. The tweak in 1959 needed to address the possibility of a work winning a Hugo in two years is worth mentioning in its own right but also serves to clarify the effect of the rule change from "preceding year". The question of whether there have always been five nominees is another example where some history would help the reader. I think it might be worth explicitly pulling out a "rules" section, and covering a history of the rule changes, finishing with a "current nominating and voting rules" paragraph.
  • Okay, done with these. I don't want to pull out a rule section- for one, the history is so tied up in the rule changes that it would gut that section, and two, that the majority of the rule changes happen at the beginning of the awards- the categories have always been in flux, but the rules, whether they were followed or not, were set in stone between 1959-1963, it seems. --PresN 19:17, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The recognition section includes some sources calling the Hugo the most important award in the sf field. It's more usual to pair it with the Nebula as one of the two most important, and you can probably find equally many sources calling the Nebula the most important sf award -- for example, book-googling for Nebula and "most prestigious award" will get you a Salon.com description of the Nebula as "science fiction's most prestigious award". Aldiss (in Trillion Year Spree) describes the Nebulas as a "counter-weight" to the Hugos, and the Nicholls refers to the two awards as rivals; more sources saying similar things should be easy to find. Generally I think this section has too much direct quotation and not enough structuring of the comments into an organized form. The key points are something like this: it's prestigious within the field (cf. the Nebula); it is recognized outside the field; it is democratic in structure, which is in contrast to the Nebulas; conversely it has been criticized for being a popularity contest; it has been eclectic (this could be cited to Nicholls) with non-traditional selections; some US-centric bias (again Nicholls). I think a paragraph that said something like that could retain some of the quotes you have but read less like a sequence of quotes and convey information more smoothly to the reader.
  • I think some explicit clarification of the difference between a Hugo and a special committee award would be useful; these have been listed as Hugos in some cases by some reference works, but are not in fact Hugos, so it would be helpful to the reader to make the distinction clear.
  • Tried to make it a bit more explicit. --PresN 19:10, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    That's definitely better. How about adding that these awards are given by the Worldcon committees? It currently reads "Worldcons may also give out special awards ..." which doesn't quite seem right anyway; the awards are presented at Worldcons, not by them. How about "Worldcon committees may also choose to give out special awards ..."? And after that you say "do not use the same trophy"; this may be true now, but it hasn't always been true -- see Franson p. 7 (near the bottom). Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:57, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You list the professional magazine category as ending in 1972, and the professional editor category as beginning in 1973. This is correct but I think the article should comment on the fact that the former was intended to be replaced by the latter; in Nicholls' words the change was made "to acknowledge the increasing importance of original anthologies".
  • This is really just a suggestion, but how about getting rid of the words "Hugo Award for" in the tables? They don't really add any information, and you could just pipe the links to the same articles.
  • The table is slightly misleading about the short story category; in some years it was called "short fiction" and applied to anything shorter than a novel. I don't think the table should imply that any of the rules on length have been constant throughout the history of the awards. I was going to suggest merging the two tables, and having a "years active" heading that said e.g. "1953–current" for the current ones; but there's also a need to list the current rules, and putting those in the table is misleading. How about listing current categories without giving dates, and give current rules? Then list all categories in tabular form, including both active and discontinued?
  • I don't like that, as it would result in duplicate categories across the two tables, and make them longer than they already are. I've changed the column to "current description"; I think the various rule changes are too complicated to cover in a table, so I'll put it in the prose. --PresN 19:10, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The comment that the awards were "initially" called "Science Fiction Achievement Awards" is a little misleading -- they were called that for forty years, and have been officially called Hugos for only twenty years. I think the original name should be mentioned in the lead, and I'd say something like "were called "Science Fiction Achievement Awards" until 1992" to avoid the implication that it was a short term or temporary name.
  • I've asked Ealdgyth to take a look at the sources for reliability -- I have concerns about timill.co.uk, which belongs to an old acquaintance of mine, as it happens. I want to get her opinion on whether it meets our reliable sources standards.
    While waiting for Ealdgyth to respond (assuming she has time), could you comment on why fanac.org and timill.co.uk should be regarded as reliable source? There's what appears to be a mirror of some or all of the timill.co.uk pages at smofs.org, so you could switch to that site if you want a site that is currently working -- it's quite hard to tell but I think smofs.org is a website run by George Scithers, who was certainly knowledgeable about sf. If you do switch, again what would make that a reliable source per Wikipedia rules?
  • I don't think you need the Rhysling Award and Locus Award links in the "See also" section; there are plenty of sf awards and these are not particularly relevant.

Just getting back to this: here are some additional points from a read through now that the additional material has largely been added.

  • The lead says the Hugo "has been termed as"; this is not standard usage for "termed". Typically one would not use "as" after "termed". How about just "described as"?
  • This is not a criticism of this article, but any idea why there aren't individual list articles for the years, as there are with the Oscars? I was expecting to see links from "2011 awards" and "2012 awards" in the lead, and was surprised to find the relevant articles don't exist.
  • The three sentences starting with: " The selection process is defined in the WSFS constitution as ..." (spanning a paragraph boundary) seem to me to jump back and forth: the selection process is followed by mention of the categories and then we go back to the selection process again. How about removing the first sentence from that paragraph and then starting the next paragraph with "Each year Worldcon members may nominate up to five nominees in each category. The five nominees with the most nominations in each category are included in the final ballot; if there two nominees are tied there may be more than five on the ballot."
  • A couple more factoids that I think should be included: you must join the current Worldcon by January 31 of that year in order to be able to nominate; and currently the article doesn't mention that you can nominate (though not vote in the final ballot) if you are a member of the preceding Worldcon.
  • "...reinstated at the 1955 Worldcon, and thereafter became traditional": I don't think "traditional" is the right word choice; something can't be a tradition within a year or two. I'd suggest specifically saying that they have been presented at every subsequent Worldcon. Same for the use of "traditional" in the first sentence of the following paragraph.
  • The "History" section doesn't explain that the awards were initially voted on by anyone who was interested, and that there was no nominating round. Both these facts can be more or less deduced from the later discussion but there's no reason to make the reader figure it out in that way. That would also give you a natural place to mention that no record has survived of the nominees for the early years of the award.
  • "additionally sparked a separate rule": you don't need both "additionally" and "separate". I'd suggest "required an additional rule".
  • The description of the special 1959 rule change is inaccurate -- the rule excluded 1958 winners, not 1958 nominees. I'm away from my refs but as I recall nominees were still not recorded in 1958 so there would have been no way to exclude them anyway. Plus Franson points out that the exclusion only applied to the fiction awards; that should be mentioned.
  • "mandating the presenting" is ugly with those two "ing"s; how about "mandating the presentation"?
  • "The fan awards were initially conceived as separate from the Hugo Awards, with the award for Best Fanzine losing its status": I know what this means because I've read the source, but I don't think it's at all clear to someone who doesn't already understand it.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:45, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mike, to clarify, the comprehensiveness concerns are fixed, we're waiting on Ealdgyth to give an opinion on whether a source is reliable, and there's some prose stuff you've identified. Anything else? Karanacs (talk) 18:43, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd summarize the current state in my view as: the comprehensiveness problems are much improved, but I need to read through PresN's latest changes and review them to be sure everything is there. The sources do need a look (Ealdgyth may be too busy to come by) -- PresN, could you go ahead and respond on timill.co.uk? and fanac.org, and on smofs.org if you decide to switch to that? Those are the main issues. I have some prose and structure concerns which I expressed above, about e.g. presentation of the history of the rules; PresN's response is reasonable and I need to think about it -- perhaps the current structure is as good as it gets. I am on a business trip till Friday but should have some time tomorrow morning or possibly tonight to take another look. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:59, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Update for Karanacs:Sources still an issue per Ealdgyth; comprehensiveness improved, to the point where the remaining issues are less significant. I don't like the flow of the article, and am adding some additional comments which include points to that effect, but the flow hasn't changed dramatically since the reviewers above supported, so I am in a minority there. My other comments so far are largely copyedits. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:22, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm looking now... Ealdgyth - Talk 01:12, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose on sourcing concerns - updated, I have concerns about using a third-party SPS transcription and then having it not made clear that such is the case. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:00, 22 September 2011 (UTC) Notes from Ealdgyth: [reply]

  • I'm not comfortable with the Scalzi blog being used as a source for "The official logo of the Hugo Awards is often placed on the winning books' cover as a promotional tool.".
  • Current ref 42 is borked - can't judge it until that's fixed.
  • I'm also a bit concerned about the sheer number of citations to the organization that gives out the awards - surely we can use something third party just to avoid the image of relying too much the organization itself.
  • I'm not seeing refs to the websites mentioned by Mike above... were they eliminated? Ealdgyth - Talk 01:21, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See note 15 for example -- the URL can be searched for in edit mode; the refs are to webcitation.org but the originals are to the other sites. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 05:09, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. Then that is a serious issue for two reasons - one ... they are transcriptions by someone we don't know if they are reliable enough (basically self-published) and two - they are misleadingly labeled as being published by the World Science Fiction organization. I'm afraid my opinion is that using a third party transcription is a big no-no, especially one where you've not included that fact in the citation. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:33, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Hugo_Award/archive1&oldid=1209117924"