Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Newbery Medal/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 PresN via FACBot (talk) 20:59:07 25 April 2019 (UTC) [1].

Newbery Medal

[edit]

Newbery Medal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:05, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it is a preeminent children's literature award. I have modeled parts of my work on this list on the Aurealis Award for best young adult novel. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:05, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh, a book award list (I did the Hugo/Nebula/World Fantasy lists at #Literature and theatre). Not going to do a full review yet, but here's some quick comments from a skim:
  • Single-sentence paragraphs are frowned on; a paragraph should have at least some flow to it.
  • "is given to the winning author at the next ALA annual conference" - ...the next? You didn't way when it's announced, so when would "next" be?
  • The lead seems not to be covering a good chunk of the "history" section; it reads like a (slim) intro to a table-only list, but then there's a good section on history that means that it should be a real lead? In any case, it feels slim- compare to Hugo Award for Best Novel, which has a more substantial lead for an objectively less important award.
  • The table has the winner/nominee in a column titled "Citation". I think it's just the column title is wrong, assuming that the whole table is cited to the reference tagged on the heading.
  • The table needs colscopes and rowscopes so that it can be parsed by non-visual browsers or text-based browsers; see MOS:DTAB or copy out of that Hugo list I linked.
--PresN 07:44, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Responding in order:
  • I did some rearranging and incorporated those sentences into existing paragraphs
  • While this was present in the text I have inserted the timing of the selection into the LEAD
  • I have incorporated some more information from the history section into the LEAD such that I hope it better complies with MOS:LEADREL
  • Citation is frequently used in this context - it was given the Newbery Medal citation but for clarity I have changed the column header.
  • I have attempted to fix this. This is new for me so please let me know if I did something wrong.
Thanks PresN for your early comments. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:32, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@PresN: Do you have any further comments or feedback? I"d love to get your support if you feel it merits it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:47, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've had this on my watchlist for a while, I'm glad to see it expanded.

  • "masters and doctoral theses are written on them" (should be master's) is a rather specific yet broad statement. It could be something along the lines "they are written about in academic writings" to be more general and not just copy the source.
  • "fifteen person" needs a hyphen, as does "ex president", as does "then ALSC President"
  • Missing period after unanimous.
  • "first winner of two Newberys" -> a second Newbery
  • space in "year,with"
  • given to the "author of... does not have a closing quotation mark
  • The image of Melcher should be in the section that discusses him
  • ellipses do not need spaces on either side
  • Several books that start with "The" do no sort correctly
  • Would be worth having a small table with the multiple winners/honorees

Just a start, that's enough problems I may have missed some. Reywas92Talk 00:56, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All done except the last one. I started doing that and quickly found it wasn't such a small table. If the feeling is that it should be done, I will happily do it but ending up removing the whole multiple winners section as more TRIVIA than encyclopedic. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:23, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It could certainly be limited to 2+ wins/3+ honors or whatever combination you think would keep it to an appropriate size, but I think it's relevant to point out the most prolific authors besides just the several we have a license-free photo of. Stuff like that is what makes Wikipedia more useful than just directing folks to the source for the bare list. Reywas92Talk 05:18, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I will work on the table. In the interests of disclosure I have not included all the authors for whom we have license-free photo because it seemed at a certain point it was "another person." If in the interests of completeness you/others think we should include all, I will add in the authors for whom I have skipped (I looked at every medal winning author; have not done so for all honor authors). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:35, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean including all images? No, the current gallery is fine, I was just commenting that most of the pictures were of multiple winners and that was the only place where such status was mentioned, but there are plenty of photos already. The table looks terrific! Linking to the books is above and beyond, just leave a note in the text above that since readers wouldn't assume that's what's linked from the year. Reywas92Talk 22:27, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have made a multiple winners table. I am still skeptical about this as I don't notice any such table in any other Featured List. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:37, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen it done somewhere before, though to again use my own lists as an example, the Hugo/Nebula etc. lists just list the notable multi-winners or multi-nominees in prose in the lead, like "A has won 5 awards, the most of any author, out of 8 nominations; B and C have won 3 times out of 4 and 6 nominations, respectively. 7 other authors have won twice.", or something like that. Might be difficult to do with this table, though, depending on how detailed you want to get. --PresN 06:51, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from BeatlesLedTV
  • Lead: five.To → space
  • Beverly Cleary image missing alt text
  • Combine years into one box, ex. only one 2014 instead of five.
  • Whole second table should be centered
  • Keep dates consistent (some are Month Day, Year, others are YYYY-MM-DD)
  • Random double comma in ref 4
  • Ref 10: p. vii → p. 7
  • Add date of publishing for refs 12, 13, & 14 (June 3, 2016 for all)
  • I'd personally archive all the website references

Looks good to me otherwise. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 19:09, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks BeatlesLedTV for your feedback. I have implemented your suggestions except if I combined the 5 into one box it would make the sorting feature much less useful. I think the current format serves readers better. I've changed Ref 10 but since I took that citation from the John Newbery article and haven't seen the source myself, I am assuming you know that it really should be p. 7 and not vii. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:00, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sortable tables can actually deal with cells spanning multiple rows now, it just splits it apart with a different sort. I just did a bunch to see how it would look (easy in visual editor) and it's much less cluttered. Reywas92Talk 22:32, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Reywas92 for doing that. It actually looks better visually when they're all merged and besides, sorting does fix itself. Having every year in every row makes it more cluttered so it's confusing to the reader, especially me when I was crafting my comments. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 10:43, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Source review from Aoba47 (Passed)

Great work with this list. I just have a few questions/comments:

  • There are a few inconsistencies with the date formats in the references. For instance, Reference 19 uses Month Day Year and Year Month Day. Would it be preferable to use the American formatting for all of the days (i.e. Month Day Year) as this is an American award?
  • For the The Newbery & Caldecott Awards : a guide to the medal and honor books source, is there any reason why the subtitle does not have any capitalization?
  • The references used in this sentence (The Newbery was proposed by Frederic G. Melcher in 1921, making it the first children's book award in the world.) should be in numeric order (i.e. reference 3 before reference 4). Aoba47 (talk) 18:54, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking the time to do a source review Aoba47. I have fixed the subtitle and ref order. I fixed source 19. In general I use VE for content creation so try to default to its Year-Month-Day format. I just looked over the list and dind't see any further issues like that, but bibliographic details have never been my strength (just ask my 6th grade social studies teacher). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:47, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for addressing everything. This passes my source review. I am pretty terrible with keeping all of the bibliographic details in oder. You can ask my English professors about that lol. Great work with this. Aoba47 (talk) 16:58, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Is the name of the award the Newbery or the John Newbery medal? I would expect the intro and the name of the article to be consistent.
  • Is there just one medal or does each recipient get to keep a carbon copy?
  • And the medal is it, no monetary value?
  • Doesn't Publishers Weekly have an article?
  • You refer to Caldecott as both "Medal" and "Award" interchangeably, isn't it just Medal per the article?
  • "five books named a Newbery Honor " either add "each" or make it "named Newbery Honors".
  • Avoid using the hash/pound symbol to mean "Number" (per MOS:HASH).
  • "of Total ..." -> "Total number of ..."
  • I don't like the easter egg links in the summary table, particularly as to the reader, the same year links to different book articles, and some not linked at all because those book article don't exist at all.

The Rambling Man (talk) 10:06, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to review The Rambling Man. I'll address your thoughts in order:
  • The full name is the John Newbery. Everyone, including the awarding organizations, shortens it in nearly all contexts to just Newbery. Changed MOS:FIRST to reflect this.
  • Each gets a copy. Noted this w/citation.
  • No monetary value.
  • Fixed.
  • So the Newbery Medal refers to the winning book. Newbery Honor refers to runner-ups. The Newbery Award refers to both. I think I did this distinction correctly throughout but it's possible I missed the mark somewhere. The same nomenclature is true for the Caldecott - this is reflected correctly in the article.
  • Fixed
  • Fixed
  • Fixed
  • I don't like that whole table, which I added as suggested above, and don't think it should exist. But I removed the links.
Thanks again. Please let me know if you have other suggestions to improve this article. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:55, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Very nice improvements, just one more thing, citation date formats seem to be mildly inconsistent, Ref 3 (for example) has an mdy publication date while the others are the horrendous ISO format. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:14, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@The Rambling Man: Fixed. I too don't like the format but since it's what VE defaults to and I do like writing major content with VE it's what I end up defaulting to. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:29, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Okeydokes, I could easily reformat it all to human-readable MDY if you prefer, but no worries really, as long as it's consistent, which is what MOS demands. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:31, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
:shrug: I like to do MOS stuff right because I'm a rules follower but have no real passion for it. I only work to keep what I write in ISO (which I couldn't have even told you was its name) so that when I'm adding content to it with VE I don't have to change the source dates it generates automatically knowing that MOS prizes consistency. Since this article likely won't have major future expansion, absent a whole bunch of new sources being written, if we consistently changed it to something better that's fine with me. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:45, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I support this nomination. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 16:47, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Giants2008 Sorry this is my first FL. Do I need to do the 4 steps at WP:FLC/ar or is that done by a director/coordinator? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:53, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The bot does it. Doesn't seem to have finished, though; re-doing. --PresN 20:58, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect Giants subst'ed the closure template, so the 'bot just ignored it. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:02, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
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://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/Newbery_Medal/archive1&oldid=935984260"