Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of XYZZY Awards by category

List of XYZZY Awards by category

This list provides a list of every award winner in the annual "Oscars of text adventures". It provides a useful and unique function: synthesising the available information into a new form not available outside wikipedia: a grouping by category instead of by year. It is referenced from the most authentic first-party source available, the XYZZYNews articles themselves, the editor of which is the organizer of the awards, with further supporting references from 3rd parties. Further added-value additional information is supplied about the concept behind each category (most background info is already supplied in the XYZZY Awards article). As the subject concerns text adventures, there are no "images" that would be useful, and there would be no such free images in any case. I realize this will be an unusual case to assess, but I remind reviewers that they should "provide a specific rationale that can be addressed" in the feedback.

• Support per nom. Nespresso 19:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Note: above should say "as nom", not "per nom". -- Colin°^Talk 14:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Are you so sure. I've used "per nom" all my time here, and see lots of people do it. Canadianshoper 20:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I might well be wrong, but I've always read the "per" as "according to" as in "per your instructions". So, yes it is used all the time, but not by the nominator him/herself. The confusion here is that the nominator is an assumed support, so if making it explicit, it is best not to make it look like an additional support. Colin°^Talk 00:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose per massive red links and super-tiny lead. Renata 23:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

lead is now extended. the number of redlinks is reduced to a bare minimum. can you change your opposition now? cheers. Nespresso 17:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

The lead is better, but still too short (see WP:LEAD). Also references can't be left in the externale link format. Handy tool is {{cite web}}. Renata 12:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

the references are now formatted per cite web. i have tweaked the lead a little: could you explain how it fails to meet WP:LEAD? it is one full paragraph that stands alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, and summarizing the article content. there are no word-count guidelines at WP:LEAD, and one paragraph is generally enough for a list. Additional information about the Xyzzies does not belong in this list, but in the main XYZZY Awards article. Cheers. Nespresso 13:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose Poor presentation, limited information and issues with references.
  • It is just one very long bullet-point list. The titles and author names just all blur after a while. This may be a good case for a sortable table. It would have columns for: Year, Category, Title, Author, Aspect (i.e. character, puzzle, etc). You could do away with the "by category" in the title. The reader could sort by any of those columns to see e.g. this year's winners, or grouped by category or see what awards a particular title or author has won. You could use box shading/colour to distinguish the winners from the other finalists. Alternatively, you might consider dispensing with the finalists.
  • There may be other possible columns such as publisher, platform, coding language, size which may be worth viewing in list format for comparison. Of course, these would need to be reliably sourced.
  • The first ref is a personal homepage (Dylan O'Donnell). This doesn't meet the reliable sources threshold and needs to go.
  • The next three refs are archived emails or newsgroup postings. The Interactive Fiction Archive may well be a useful resource for I.F. fans but still doesn't meet the threshold for sources for an encyclopaedia. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Using online and self-published sources for why those refs are also unsuitable. Can you find another source? I appreciate that removing info that cannot meet 1c, you end up failing 1b. This is a problem for subjects in popular culture.
  • The section leads explain the criteria for each award but aren't sourced.
  • The section leads contain repetitive text ("This award has been given since" is obvious) and the winner/finalist info could be mentioned at the top.
  • The list has just had all the red links removed to meet Renata's objection. However, this seriously diminishes the list's usefulness to Wiki. If these awards are important, and celebrate the best I.F. then surely the winners deserve articles. I can appreciate the other finalists may not be notable enough but then one wonders if they are then worth mentioning in an encyclopaedia (just noise). Looking at the linked articles, many are just stubs that reflect the award information. There are a few decent short articles but I'd be much happier if this list grouped together more articles that were actually worth reading.
  • A recent change to the FL criteria allows lists of items not notable enough to have articles. This is new and so far I'm not aware of any lists being featured due to it. In order not to end up with featured bus timetables, the subject really has to be quite significant. Such a list would need to excel in its writing and presentation and do more than just re-present a single source in wiki format.
  • Sometimes, too much data hides the useful information (wood for the trees). I wonder if the reader would be better served by a table of winners-only folded into the XYZZY Award article, which itself is just a stub. Concentrate then on ensuring all the winners have decent short articles.

Colin°^Talk 14:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)