Hugo Awards (1st supplementary nomination) edit

This topic is already featured. It is being re-nominated to add additional items. See Wikipedia talk:Featured topics/Hugo Awards for discussions of the topic's previous nominations. The additional items are:

  1. Hugo Award for Best Fancast

I created this topic a couple years ago; since then, another category has been created- that of Best Fancast, being the audiovisual variant of the Best Fanzine award that's been around for almost 60 years. The list isn't long enough to make it through FLC (and won't be until next years' nominations), but I got it peer reviewed so it can go ahead and get added to the topic. It's the exact same format as the other 15 lists, it's just... shorter. Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 22:10, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Editors should note that the peer review didn't return any comments, but I believe this article is in sufficiently good shape for addition to the topic. Adabow (talk) 00:21, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delegate Comment Without any comments on the peer review, I am unsure if Hugo Award for Best Fancast would satisfy criterion 3.c. Perhaps you should attempt another peer review, or you could also nominate the article at WP:GAN. Another topic currently being nominated has its lead article as a GA because as a list it is too short for an FL.-- 22:21, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't really think that a short list is acceptable for GA; I would certainly fail it if I reviewed an article like it. I'll relist it at PR. --PresN 17:21, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that at least for now the list could be resturctured as a short article with a short section for each year. Nergaal (talk) 15:41, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • In six months or so, the nominations for the next year's awards will come out, and I'll be able to nominate it at FLC- that was the length Hugo Award for Best Graphic Story was when I nominated it. I'd rather not rewrite the whole thing, just to revert it back soon after. --PresN 16:04, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alright, the second peer review has now been closed, with comments addressed there. --PresN 18:19, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]