Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Coretta Scott King Award/archive1

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) 12:25, 13 October 2023 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Coretta Scott King Award[edit]

Featured list candidates/Coretta Scott King Award/archive1

Nominator(s): Barkeep49 (talk) 21:05, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

From modest origins as an award co-sponsored by a middle school, the Coretta Scott King Awards are now a major American Children's Literature award honoring African American authors and illustrators. This list continues the work I did with the Caldecott and Newbery Medals towards improving the quality of children's literature award coverage on Wikipedia. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:05, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by RunningTiger123[edit]

Remove "(Book Awards)" in infobox
Don't bold "The" in lead
Don't hyphenate "African American" (in other words, don't use "African-American") per MOS:HYPHEN
I'm not a fan of the blockquote in the lead – while not a direct violation of MOS:PULLQUOTE, it violates the spirit of that rule to me when placed with the preceding paragraph.
"Ms. Greer" – just say Greer
- Same for "Dr. King", though additional clarification may be needed since two Kings are involved
"Early sponsors of the award included the New Jersey Library Association..." – sentence is used twice back-to-back
That was one of the last changes I made and missed my proofreading. Feel silly about it. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:54, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Starting in 1978, runner-ups to the Author award have been recognized as Honor Books" – but 1971, 1974, 1976, and 1977 have Honor Books in the table?
They were called runner-ups those years but retroactively are referred to as Honor Books. I've attempted to clarify. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:54, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"2 Coretta Scott King Awards" – spell out "two" per MOS:NUM
In the image captions, Bud, not Buddy should be italicized
Images need alt text
If ref. 13 sources the entire table, the access date should follow the most recent awards
In 2009, The Blacker the Berry should be italicized
- Same in 2010 for The Negro Speaks of Rivers and in 2021 for Exquisite
In 2023, Washington's cell should be colored
In 2023, The Talk should sort by "Talk"

— RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:08, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:54, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support – RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:52, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FOARP[edit]

General comment: The topic here is essentially the award. The ALA gives the award, so whilst sources published by them are likely reliable, they are not independent. Libraries Unlimited appears to have been an imprint specifically for teachers (i.e., narrow-interest media). GBN appears to be something that was founded via Facebook. Fuse8 is (or was) a blog. The annotated bibliography is someone's thesis. I was rather hoping for more sourcing independent of the ALA, and not simply narrow-interest imprints/blogs/interviews (etc.) to establish the notability of this topic, bearing in mind that notability is not inherited. For example, well-established news sources covering who receives the awards. FOARP (talk) 07:53, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PS - maybe this Britannica Almanac piece could help? I don't know if this is of the same stature as the encyclopaedia. FOARP (talk) 11:03, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike the last two lists I did, a lot of the content that was here before remains and I found very little new information to add to it. I share your concerns about the master's thesis but the information that I could check against other sources all agreed (and at least in one ALA publication sourced back to the thesis). So for me it was a question of whether to include such information at all. You also seem to have notability concerns. The annual announcements receive widespread media attention. For instance here is the Christian Science Monitor covering it in 1990 and here is it covering it this year. Examples of coverage from this year include USA Today, St Louis Post Dispatch, and Washington Post. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:54, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Barkeep49 - thanks for responding, is there anything relevant in those references describing the award that could be added in just so we don't have something entirely referenced to ALA/blogs/thesis/interviews/narrow-interest media? The CSM coverage looks good. FOARP (talk) 14:30, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)[edit]

Tables need column scopes for all column header cells, which in combination with row scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Column scopes can be added by adding !scope=col to each header cell, e.g. ! width="5%" |Year becomes !scope=col width="5%" |Year. If the cell spans multiple columns with a colspan, then use !scope=colgroup instead.
Tables need row scopes on the "primary" column for each row, which in combination with column scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Row scopes can be added by adding !scope=row to each primary cell, e.g. ! 1970 becomes !scope=row style="color:white;" | 1970. If the cell spans multiple rows with a rowspan, then use !scope=rowgroup instead. Note that right now you have both the year and work columns as the "primary" column/header; you should pick one and make the other a "regular" cell (with | instead of !).
Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. I don't return to these reviews until the nomination is ready to close, so ping me if you have any questions. --Pres N 18:10, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@PresN: I've implemented column and row scopes for the main table and key. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:23, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review from MyCatIsAChonk[edit]

No spotcheck needed; focusing on formatting/reliability. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 23:07, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All ISBNs should use version 13 and have proper hyphenation- here's a great tool for converting improper ISBNs
What's the point of the quote in ref 1?
Abbreviations as citation publishers.works should be consistent (e.g. either use "ALA" or "American Library Association" for all)
Ref 5 redirects to the award's page. What is this verifying?
Ref 7: make "interviews" lowercase, per MOS:ALLCAPS- also, needs author
Ref 12: Make "School Library Journal" the publisher and leave the work as is
Unrelated, but there's a pretty high Earwig score on one of the sources. This needs to be cut down.
What makes the following sources reliable:
- The Open Book Blog
- Good Black News

Barkeep49, that's all I got, nice work. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 23:07, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the references have now all been cleaned up. I cannot answer the questions about why certain sources are valuable and the point of the quote in ref 1. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:07, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Hey man im josh, I will need proof that the two sources are reliable. I've cut the quote from ref 1. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 00:40, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vat[edit]

Been considering getting into FLC, and this list is in very good shape.

1993 picture of Scott King -- any reason for this phrasing rather than e.g. "Scott King in 1993"?
and in 1981 the illustrator award was also renamed -- the lead clarifies this as "runner-ups renamed to honors", but here it's something of a disconnected run-on sentence.
The award eventually changed its ALA affiliation from the SRRT to the Ethnic and Multicultural Information Exchange Round Table (EMIERT), which had become a closer match for its activities -- what did this mean for the organization in practical terms, for readers not very familiar with the internal workings of the ALA? (When was 'eventually'?)

That's all I have -- this is excellent work, and I hope it doesn't need to wait too much longer for FL. Vaticidalprophet 20:00, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Barkeep49: Are you still pursuing this nomination? There's the above review and some questions about sources that are unaddressed, though I see that Hey man im josh helped out with some things. --Pres N 14:51, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, Barkeep49 hasn't come back to this nomination, but I'd really rather not fail it for lack of activity when it's really close to being done... so I'm just going to fix things up and promote. I fixed an accessibility thing with row headers. The Open Book Blog is fine as it's a publisher's blog (Lee & Low Books), not just an independent blog. The Good Black News I can't justify, so I replaced it with the ALA source that was already in use. Changed the caption. The honors thing was cited to the wrong thing (it's in Thompkins) and was misleading- it's not so much that the runner-ups were renamed so much as that they were listed as "Honor Books" starting in those years instead of unlisted at all, the lead had it right. The EMIERT thing was just because the EMIERT used to be a task force of the SRRT, so once it existed as a separate affiliation the award switched to follow it; it's probably still too minor a thing to mention, but I'll leave it in. With that all sorted... promoting. --Pres N 02:36, 13 October 2023 (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.