Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Nebula Award for Best Novella/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 Giants2008 20:10, 18 June 2012 [1].

Nebula Award for Best Novella

Featured list candidates/Nebula Award for Best Novella/archive1

Nominator(s): Pres N 23:10, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now that novels has passed through, here is the list of Novella winners/nominees for the Nebula Awards- American sci-fi's Emmys. This list is basically identical to the novels list, but with different authors and works filling up the table. All FLC comments from the novels list have been incorporated into this list as well. Thanks for reviewing! --Pres N 23:10, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 07:18, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Two dabs, John Varley and Michael Bishop, need fixing.

Done, they were fine in the table, just not the lead. --Pres N 02:12, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seems a shame that many of the winning works don't have articles...

Yeah... A lot of stubs, too. --Pres N 02:12, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"have not won either." have won neither?

"Have also not won an award"? --Pres N 02:12, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"the winner of the 2012 award will not be announced until April 2012." well it is April 2012 now, so presumably we need to update this or get a clearer update date on it.

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:07, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ceremony is May 19 this year, so specified. --Pres N 02:12, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 18:00, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

"Beginning with the 2009 awards, the rules were changed to the current format." The use of beginning implies to me that the rules have changed twice which doesn't seem to be the case. Would simply put: "The rules were changed to their current format in 2009."
:Prior to then..." would change to previously
I would use different colours to indicate symbols instead of using the same colour for both, slightly confusing and not easy to distinguish between tied winners and winners and joint winners.

NapHit (talk) 21:18, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done, done, done. --Pres N 22:00, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support NapHit (talk) 18:00, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support with just one comment:

"Novellas published by themselves are eligible for the novel award instead if the author requests them to be considered as such." - Do we know if this has happened before?

This is quite minor, however, and more of a curiosity issue for me, so I am adding my support. This is a great series of lists to see brought to this quality! Dana boomer (talk) 01:09, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

~~File:WilliamsNebula.jpg~~ – Who is the copyright holder of the Nebula Award trophy? Good raise 12:58, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unsure- I can't find any information on copyrights on the trophy itself. --Pres N 20:33, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the File: page needs to make clear how we know that using the image isn't infringing on somebody's copyright. If we can't be reasonably certain, we can't use the image. We can be reasonably certain that the uploader took the picture, but not that this makes him or her the sole copyright holder. Something needs to be done here. If nothing else works, there's still fair use. Good raise 10:48, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I've moved it to fair use. --Pres N 14:59, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, moving on. Good raise 22:17, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nebula Trophy.jpg – Please see WP:FUR. A separate rationale is necessary for every use of the image. The rationales need to be detailed and specific. Declaring that the non-free content criteria are met is insufficient. It is necessary to explain how they are met. Don't be afraid to write a long FUR; a verbose one is better than one that is too short. Good raise 22:17, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How's that? --Pres N 15:44, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Harrias

;Comments from Harrias ^talk

I'm not convinced about the opening paragraph. WP:BOLDTITLE states that "If an article's title is a formal or widely accepted name for the subject, display it in bold as early as possible in the first sentence." In this article, the title is emboldened in the third sentence, and while I can understand the thinking behind it, I would prefer to see the paragraph reworked slightly to place it in the first sentence, or not embolden it at all.

Hmm, well, as I'm sure you figured out, my thinking was that it doesn't make a lot of sense to specify the novella award before saying what the Nebula awards are in the first place. I've kept this format for 17 award lists so far, so I rather like it, but I'm not opposed to dropping the bolding. Done. --Pres N 20:14, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would expand the link to Nebula Award for Best Novel to be "[[Nebula Award for Best Novel|novel category]]" rather than simply "[[Nebula Award for Best Novel|novel]] category". At the moment I mistook that for a link to Novel.

Good point, done. --Pres N 20:14, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is hugely picky, but given that you've abbreviated "Ref." it needs to be defined somewhere.

Ugh, really? There isn't anywhere to define it, and I don't want to make that column wider by spelling it out. As before, I've been calling the column "ref" or "ref." for 17 lists now, and I thought it was common practice to leave it abbreviated. Any suggestions on where/how to define it? --Pres N 20:14, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, on second look this is far too picky: don't worry about it: it's pretty self-explanatory. Harrias ^talk 15:30, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What makes TechRepublic a reliable source? The article in question looks blog-ish in style, though I appreciate it isn't in the blog section of the site.

TechRepublic is an online IT magazine, owned by CBS Interactive. It's run entirely professionally, with paid writers, editors, a subscription service, etc. Despite the styling, it's as reliable as any other professional-targeted magazine. --Pres N 20:14, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All in all a good looking article! Harrias ^talk 13:04, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing! --Pres N 20:14, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support looks good to me now! Harrias ^talk 20:18, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Agree with all the supporters.--GoP _T ^C _N 16:47, 9 June 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.