Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Ray Bradbury Award/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured list candidates
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 via FACBot (talk) 00:27, 26 October 2020 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Ray Bradbury Award

edit

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

Toolbox
Nominator(s): PresN 02:57, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Way back in 2012, I took the then-five categories of the Nebula Awards through FLC, following the 15+ lists on scifi/fantasy awards I'd already done. At the time, I thought I was done, but now not only has the Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America SFWA started a new category for game writing, which I was waiting to get to a decent length before nominating, they've gone and retroactively made their two "not an official category" categories into official categories. So, I've got some lists to polish up, and here's the first: the Ray Bradbury Nebula Award for Outstanding Dramatic Presentation, now with "Nebula" stuck into the name to make it extra-official. It's a bit of an odd award- unlike the other categories that got voted on, the president of SFWA just gave it out to whatever 4 times in 17 years, and when SFWA retired the Best Script category they converted it to the "normal" process but left it as a separate thing form the regular categories. They also give it to the "primary" "director and writer(s)", which don't always match the screen credits (and the past couple of years they've just said "writer" even if the person also directed). Until this year, like I said, when they decided it was official (not with anything so crass as a public announcement, but just by changing the rules to say it was official and telling former winners that they counted). Anyway, here it is- it's modeled heavily on the existing 5 Nebula FLs, as well as the other 20+ SFF award lists I did between 2010 and 2016, so hopefully the format is still solid. Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 02:57, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Consider noting that "short miniseries of no more than three connected episodes" may be nominated per reference 1
  • added
  • Reference 6 is not great for this specific award (applies more directly to the Andre Norton Award) – if possible, find a better source
  • Frustratingly, I can't- they never made an announcement, even on their own blog. They just... renamed the award, and updated the rules.
  • While the listed sources indicate that the award was not originally a Nebula Award, they do not directly indicate that the name was changed from "Ray Bradbury Award…" to "Ray Bradbury Nebula Award…"; consider finding a source for this
  • See above; I've added a source to the archived rules page from June 2019 where the old name was used
  • Added
  • Rules in second paragraph are from 2011 and do not align with the current Nebula website
Oh for stars' sake, would it kill them to actually announce these changes outside of their internal mailing list? Fixed, and now I have to go fix all the other lists too; apparently they tweaked rules for the nominations dates in 2017.
  • Reference 7 seems moot, as the award was only regularly awarded after the rules change, but I'm torn as to whether or not you should remove it. A second opinion here would be nice.
  • I left it (and the pre-2009 rules text it supports) there specifically because of the 3 "selected" winners that would have been before the rules change; assuming we count Babylon 5 from the main series air date (Jan 26, 1994) and not the test pilot airing (Feb 22, 1993) it didn't apply to any of them so I'm easily persuaded to drop it.
  • Sources used for awards do not appear to be entirely accurate – for instance, reference 14 omits Orci and Kurtzman as nominees for Star Trek and Doctor and McCarthy for Up, while reference 21 includes Rich Moore and Jared Bush as nominees. Find better sources or use the SFWA's website (i.e. for 2010, consider using this link for the source).
  • I can't replace Locus because I need to cite something that's not SFWA itself to justify that the subject matters; I used SFWA's site to actually get the names/positions and so missed the discrepancies. Added SFWA's pages as secondary sources, as I believe them to be more authoritative, although this is the first time I've ever seen a data issue with Locus so I don't know what caused it.
    • Follow-up: After rereading the document, I noticed reference 11, which seems to be more accurate. However, because of its position, it doesn't seem like the source for the entire table. Is this what you're using for your source? If so, I don't know why you've included the other references that contradict it.
  • Reference 12 does not mention the Ray Bradbury Award at all
  • Dropped in favor of citing SFWA directly
  • 2010 nominees should include Moon
  • Fixed
  • Fixed
  • Alphabetize 2010 and 2019 nominees to align with other years' entries
  • Done
  • SFWA's website lists Paramount as publisher for How to Train Your Dragon, not DreamWorks
  • Fixed
  • Remove teleplay note for "AKA Smile"
  • Fixed
  • Drew Goddard wrote The Martian, not Lawrence Kasdan
  • Fixed
  • James Gilroy is not a writer for Logan; James Mangold should be credited as director and writer
  • Fixed
  • Italicize Good Omens in infobox
  • Fixed
  • Consider adding sort function to Creators and Publishers columns
  • Done for publishers; I've not done this for creators in this and similar lists because a) it gives the weight to the director (that's listed first) over the other creators and b) it gets weird when SFWA only lists writers- the sorting, as a result, is not predictable by readers in the same way sorting by title or year is.

Overall, the formatting and lead seem solid, but the referencing is shaky and needs to be seriously overhauled. RunningTiger123 (talk) 20:19, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@RunningTiger123: Finally got to this; my sincere apologies for taking so long (covid+work+homeschooling wiped out my energy for big tasks on wiki). Apologies also for the amount of work- this was an incredibly thorough review, and I'm frankly embarrassed that you found some of these fairly severe problems with the list. Thank you so much for doing so and finding these flaws. I've responded inline, but hopefully everything is fixed now. --PresN 03:40, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support — The edits look good and are well integrated into the article; thank you for addressing them! RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:51, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Additional note: I'm not changing my decision to support; this is just something to consider. If you need non-SFWA sources, there are options from other websites for recent years (for instance: 2020, 2019, 2018, another 2018, and 2017). These sources could replace Lotus, as they seem to be more accurate. Even if you can't find sources going all the way back to the earliest awards, I would be okay with some years using secondary sources and the rest using SFWA sources. This would establish that the award is meaningful while ensuring the citations are valid. Again, this is just something to consider; the call here is yours. RunningTiger123 (talk) 05:15, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dank

  • Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing.
  • I'm confused by the lack of an asterisk in the 2001 row.
  • Fixed
  • FLC criteria:
    • 1. I've done a little copyediting; feel free to revert or discuss. The prose looks good.
    • 2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
    • 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
    • 3b. The sources appear to be reliable, and the UPSD tool isn't indicating any problems (but this isn't a source review). All relevant retrieval dates are present. For this review, I'm not taking a position on the points raised above.
    • 3c. The list meets requirements as a stand-alone list, it isn't a content fork, it doesn't largely duplicate another article (that I can find), and it wouldn't fit easily inside another article.
    • 4. It is navigable.
    • 5. It meets style requirements. It doesn't use images, but I'm weak in that area so I don't have an opinion.
    • 6. It is stable.
    • The table coding looks good. Some people prefer to avoid redirects for names of people and companies (for instance, Warner Bros. Domestic Television redirects to Warner Bros. Television Studios). I'll be happy to go through the table avoiding such redirects if you like.
  • Support, with the caveat that I'm not taking a position on things the previous reviewer said. Well done. - Dank (push to talk) 00:00, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - Pass

edit

Reliability is good, based on the reliance on a few sources. Formatting good as well – Pass for source review Aza24 (talk) 07:54, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Harrias

edit

NB: I am competing in the WikiCup, and may claim points for this review.

  • What is the source for "with the Marvel Cinematic Universe earning the most nominations with seven films and one television episode"? There are only six entries in the list crediting Marvel? Counting things that might be MCU on the list (OR) I get to nine (ten if Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse is MCU).
  • Counting is not OR; some of them say Disney/Paramount instead of Marvel because the publisher is according to SFWA, not the full credits, but the Marvel Cinematic Universe is an actual thing, not a category open to interpretation, any more than counting Star Wars films/series is OR. That said, I definitely miscounted to get 7+1. If I'm counting right now: Captain America: The First Avenger, The Avengers, Guardians of the Galaxy, Captain America: The Winter Soldier, Doctor Strange, Black Panther, Avengers: Endgame, Captain Marvel, and Jessica Jones: "AKA Smile", so 8+1. Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse, which wasn't produced by Marvel or its owner, is not MCU.
  • Sure, counting isn't OR, but knowing which films and TV series are or are not MCU is OR. You are using your specialist knowledge to determine that. If the films being part of the MCU was defined and sourced in the list, then we could simply count it and include it. But realistically, without an external reliable source backing up the claim that the MCU has the most nominations, it falls short of the requirements of WP:V as laid out in WP:OR. And yes, this also applies to the Star Wars films and series. Harrias (he/him) • talk 10:51, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I take on board the point that the MCU "is an actual thing, not a category open to interpretation"; I missed this on my first read of your response. I can see this both ways. Most things we cite are facts which aren't open to interpretation (who won this award in 2019, for example), but we still have to cite them. Ultimately, the Featured list criteria only require content to meet WP:BURDEN and WP:MINREF, so the question is whether it is likely to be challenged. In theory, I guess that I'm challenging it, but I'm not really. I'm willing to stand down on this, but if anyone does query the figure via an edit or on the talk page, then it would need a source. Harrias (he/him) • talk 11:16, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Avoid Noun plus-ing: "..with 11 of those winning..", "..with the Marvel Cinematic Universe earning.." and "..with one film winning."
  • Fixed
  • The leads says that "Only individual works are eligible, not serials such as television series.." and yet in 1999, the president chose Babylon 5, maybe add that to the exceptions list at the end of the lead?
  • Added

Otherwise, this looks good. Harrias (he/him) • talk 09:09, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Harrias: Thanks for reviewing! Responded inline. --PresN 16:45, 19 October 2020 (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_list_candidates/Ray_Bradbury_Award/archive1&oldid=985445179"