Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Shortlist Music Prize/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 The Rambling Man 15:47, 13 February 2010 [1].

Shortlist Music Prize edit

Nominator(s): RB88 (T) 01:24, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

Let's see what the FLC fuss is all about. Like the award, modelled on the Mercury Prize. RB88 (T) 01:24, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 07:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments (hmm, using the Mercury Prize, eh? Good choice...!)
;) RB88 (T) 00:56, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • US-centric article, so should "stylised" be "stylized"? Same with modelled and honoured perhaps.
    • Don't see any massive national ties. But there wasn't that much Yanklish to do. RB88 (T) 00:56, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • How much is/was "the cash prize"?
    • It varied each year (and even had gifts or charity donations sometimes), so that's why I kept it simple. RB88 (T) 00:56, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "sponsored for the i" sponsored the prize... ?
    • DONE RB88 (T) 00:56, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • " in future years" the following years?
    • DONE RB88 (T) 00:56, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "N.E.R.D famously received " maybe it's just me but what made it so "famous"?
    • Well, it was a quirk more than anything, but DONE RB88 (T) 00:56, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "became an awaited event" just me, once more, but this reads oddly for me. perhaps "an anticipated award"? Not sure...
    • DONE RB88 (T) 00:56, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is that link to Cee-Lo the one you want?
    • DONE RB88 (T) 00:56, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Turn on the Bright Lights should be Turn On the Bright Lights. Check other album titles are per Wikipedia article titles.
    • DONE. Lifted or The Story Is in the Soil, Keep Your Ear to the Ground has two titles so the "the" has to be in caps.

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:41, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support I made a few copy-edits to the lead, but the list otherwise looks good. One thing: I saw that you changed "won" to "were successful". I know that close repetition in prose is usually frowned upon, but I think the parallel structure makes the repeated "won"s work here. Also, the current phrasing might make the reader think that "were successful" means something different from "won". However, it's a not a big deal. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:23, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks. I know, I know, repetition is a pet peeve of mine. I tried to find a better synonym, but that's all I could come with. Although, I think that following the sentence's initial clause before the colon, it should be clear we're talking about winners. Plus win is used three time in that same sentence just in case there was any ambiguity. RB88 (T) 23:28, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Good points. Like I said, the issue is not a big deal, and your explanations are satisfactory. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:32, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I can't find anything and think its a pretty solid job. Afro (Not a Terrible Joke) - Afkatk 11:53, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Cheers. RB88 (T) 06:26, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Mm40 (talk) 19:28, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers. RB88 (T) 17:07, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Mm40 (talk)
*Shouldn't it be "was an annual music award" as it's no longer being presented?
    • It's never been discontinued, nor has there been news of the end. The website continues normally. RB88 (T) 11:47, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "for only that year following" could be "for a year following"
    • Done. RB88 (T) 11:47, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "sponsored the award in the inaugural year only" again there's that "only". Perhaps "sponsored the inaugural ceremony"
    • Done. RB88 (T) 11:47, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can take out "were successful"
    • I can't. All the parts of the second half of the sentence have verbs which were added after Dabomb's ce (see above). RB88 (T) 11:47, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The last column can simple be "Refs", as multiple references are provided for each entry.
    • Done. RB88 (T) 11:47, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can albums beginning with "The" be sorted as the word after it?
    • Not really. That would defy the artists who actually named them a certain way and it wouldn't be accurate. They're alphabetical anyway. RB88 (T) 11:47, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think there could be a column in the table for pictures of the winning group (à la Grammy Legend Award). Presently, the table is very wide and the images seem cramped.
    • I modelled this on The Rambling Man's Mercury Prize. I think it's a very nice layout and much better than the Grammy one, which made me squint a few times. RB88 (T) 11:47, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the first ALT text, you may need to describe the (shôrt–lĭst) styling, as it's going to be read to blind visitors.
    • Removed the stylings. I think knowing it's called short-list is enough. RB88 (T) 11:47, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • All the ALT texts should at least mention gender
    • Done. RB88 (T) 11:47, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rice's ALT text can be expanded (all of them can, really). Mention the microphone, what he's wearing, etc.
    • Done. RB88 (T) 11:47, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Feist's ALT text needs to be expanded. "A vocalist with a guitar performing on stage" is not helpful
    • Done. RB88 (T) 11:47, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • An External links section should be created to house a link to the award's website. Mm40 (talk) 17:32, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I had it, but it was just a repetition of the one in the infobox, thus redundant. RB88 (T) 11:47, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, didn't see that. Mm40 (talk) 12:43, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mm40 (talk).

Response: I've capped issues that were resolved and responded to some others. Mm40 (talk) 12:43, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • "that has sold fewer than" I think "has" is redundant
    • "At the time of nomination" warrants that verb tense. RB88 (T) 11:47, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • My issue isn't verb tense, it's that the sentence would sound better and still be grammatically correct without "has". Mm40 (talk) 12:43, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • That is verb tense surely: the present perfect "has sold" versus the preterite "sold". Again, I have to say the "at the time nomination" requires the present perfect. RB88 (T) 14:56, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "given in cash prize form in 2001" might be better as "given as a cash prize in 2001". The current "cash prize form" sounds a bit odd.
    • I get ya, and I had it like that, but didn't want to repeat "as" twice in quick succession. RB88 (T) 11:47, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well currently, the article repeats "in" three words apart, as opposed to "as" five words apart and "form" not being needed. (I hope that made sense, it's too early for me...) Mm40 (talk) 12:43, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yeah alright. RB88 (T) 14:56, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are there any images of the trophy?
    • Not free anyway. RB88 (T) 11:47, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • You might be able to make a fair-use claim, but images aren't my strong point, so won't bug you. Also, there's no real place to put it. Mm40 (talk) 12:43, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • It'll be hard to claim fair use as it will need a LOT of critical commentary. It's not that special an award anyway unlike say the Grammy. RB88 (T) 14:56, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • What does "continued to be held" mean? As far as I can gather, there was were no ceremonies between '06 and '07.
    • I'm confused. Course there were awards in 06 and 07. The sentence actually makes clear "until the last given prize for 2007". RB88 (T) 11:47, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK, the last paragraph describes the award chronologically. The last date talked about before the "continued to be held" sentence is March 2006. To me, "continued to be help" implies that awards were given periodically between March '06 and '07.
        • Sorry I don't see any ambiguity in "The award ceremony continued to be held in the early part of years until the last given prize for 2007." I.e. Award cermony --> annual --> held in early part of year --> until 2007 prize. RB88 (T) 14:56, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have you considered expanding with Music Prize&f=false this or Music Prize&f=false this from Billboard?
    • Thanks. The last one didn't add much to the summated lead. The first had a bit of info that was worth it. I also have to say that most of the ventures mentioned or speculated year by year never materialised for this award. RB88 (T) 11:47, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not specifically talking talking about those sources, but because this is the only related entry of this award on Wikipedia, you should try to be comprehensive with as much information as you can. This may require splitting out and creating a separate section talk about the award itself, not the winners. This is only needed if more sources are found. Also, you can add the Google Books link (see my argument against your fear of dead links below). Mm40 (talk) 12:43, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • It is as comprehensive as required. Criteria, ceremony, commercial each with a paragraph. It's a seven-year old indie award. I don't think people expect magnum opuses, or mountains of available sources. I've checked all the archives. Any other material is a duplicate of what's here. The only differences are year-by-year nuances and sponsors, but those will require to be put in 2001 Shortlist Music Prize etc should those articles be created. This is the general one, again like the Mercury Prize. RB88 (T) 14:56, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This states the date of ref 2 (Mumbi Moody, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette) was October 23, not October 31. Also, the article is available at Google News, so adding the link would be nice.
    • The date of the paper I read was 31 (WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT). I also don't like to add Google News links. I'm a dead tree fetishist and think we need to encourage readers and editors to branch out (pun intended), especially for featured quality articles. RB88 (T) 11:47, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Personally, I think it makes it easier verify. Also, per this, it's allowed, and there really is no harm. Check every once in a while to make sure they're still alive. If they die, replace them, or, if you want, you can use the Wayback Machine. IMO, it makes the article better. Mm40 (talk) 12:43, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, verifying only tends to happen during featured processes. You and others here have seen the sources, I just don't like to add Google links. Readers can see the info in the text, they don't need to verify anything on the assumption that this process has taken care of that and given a bronze star. RB88 (T) 14:56, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Truco

Comments from Truco (talk · contribs)

General
  • Dabs, links, contributors, and alt text check out fine.
Lead
  • Per MOS:BOLD, don't bold other names that aren't the title of the article. If you want to emphasize a name, use italics or quotations. The other names aren't really synonyms since they were one time names.
DONE. RB88 (T) 20:57, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, re-read WP:MOSBOLD, it says alternative names can be bolded..., to whit: "The most common use of boldface is to highlight the article title, and often synonyms, in the lead section (first paragraph). This is done for the vast majority of articles, but there are exceptions. See Lead section – Format of the first sentence for in-depth coverage." The Rambling Man (talk) 21:11, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but the other names aren't really synonyms, they are one time names. Like Grammy awards and Grammys are synonyms.--Truco 503 23:08, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've started a discussion about this at Wikipedia talk:Lead section#Bolding_variants of titles. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:31, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
TBH, I'm not that fussed. I doubt it removes or adds much. RB88 (T) 22:19, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change this sentence to: The majority of the seven winners so far have been singer-songwriters: Irishman Damien Rice won in 2003,[3] Americans Sufjan Stevens and Cat Power were successful in 2005 and 2006, respectively,[4][8] and Canadian Feist won in 2007. --a comma is needed before respectively.
DONE. RB88 (T) 20:57, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Theres no explanation (in any source) as to why it was stopped in '07?
Because it hasn't, that's why it says "is an award". There's been no news about its end. It's more of a hiatus (probably because of the recession). RB88 (T) 20:57, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would probably state that, or it will make the article sound a bit outdated.--Truco 503 23:08, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Added a hiatus note in the box. There aren't any specific sources, so what the text says is what's available really. It sums it up pretty well in my opinion. RB88 (T) 22:19, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Table
  • Shortlisted is in terms of the name of the award or in general like they were on the list but didn't win?
Works both ways really (and accurately). RB88 (T) 20:57, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, gotcha.--Truco 503 23:08, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
External links
  • No template for the winners?--Truco 503 01:40, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Does that really affect the decision for an article to be made FA or FL? I would put it if it existed but really cannot be bothered to make it. If someone does, then fair enough. RB88 (T) 20:57, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Template/category (pref) would be fine, but has no bearing at all on this FLC. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:11, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It was just a suggestion that would enhance the article but not affect its FLC.--Truco 503 23:08, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- previous issues resolved; now meets WP:WIAFL.--Truco 503 23:46, 12 February 2010 (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/Shortlist_Music_Prize/archive1&oldid=1207850742"