Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Bookseller/Diagram Prize for Oddest Title of the Year/archive2

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 Giants2008 17:09, 18 September 2012 [1].

Bookseller/Diagram Prize for Oddest Title of the Year[edit]

Bookseller/Diagram Prize for Oddest Title of the Year (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): GoPTCN 09:35, 21 July 2012 (UTC), User:ISD[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it deserves a star. The first (obscure) nomination failed due to a very minor issue, despite receiving three supports. The main editor, User:ISD, agreed with me to nominate this article a second time. Regards.GoPTCN 09:35, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:23, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose multiple comments, but enough to say no.
  • Infobox image caption doesn't need a full stop.
  • Should the caption be "Bookseller/Diagram Prize"?
  • "at first decided by" initially decided by.
  • Infobox, I think the "last awarded" usually is used for defunct awards.
  • " there has been controversy. There have been two occasions when" reads a little awkwardly to me, repetitive and not that engaging.
  • I don't know how to reword the phrases.
  • I reworded
  • "The latest winner was Cooking with Poo by Saiyuud Diwong." perhaps "The most recent winner, in 2012, was Cooking...."?
  • "but it was expanded to books outside of the fair" it was later expanded?
  • but other books outside of the fair were also included <- is this better?
  • "The Bookseller open suggestions " opened.
  • "receives a considerable amount of press coverage" -> "receives considerable press coverage"
  • "for the person who spots the" replace "spots" with "nominates"?
  • "but he later changed his mind and now creates" -> he later reconsidered and...
  • "A follow-up book is to be released in October 2009..." it's 2012?
  • "enough that in 2004, " put a comma in front of in.
  • Check that all "Notes" which aren't complete sentences don't end in a full stop.
  • Multiple page refs should be pp. not just p.
  • Page ranges should use an en-dash, not a hyphen.
  • Be consistent, is it "The New York Times" or "New York Times"?
  • Be consistent, is it BBC News or BBC?

The Rambling Man (talk) 16:53, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done all except noted. Please check the notes section whether my edits were correct.--GoPTCN 11:07, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Bloom6132 (talk) 10:03, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments –
  • "the idea of an award...was proposed by a member of the Diagram Group, to provide entertainment" – replace with "...Diagram Group in order to provide entertainment"
  • "the winner was voted for by the public instead of decided by Bent" – replace with "...instead of being decided by Bent"
  • "'odd titles' and NOT 'odd books' – don't SHOUT and instead use italics (...and not 'odd...)
  • "Bent did not offer a prize in 1987 and 1991" – add comma after 1991
  • "Bent has also expressed his dislike of people voting for ruder titles saying that he himself would not have voted for the 2007 winner," – comma after "titles"; no comma after "winner"
  • "winner of the 2008 award was controversial as Parker did not write the book himself but used an automated" – comma after "controversial" and "himself". Also, the word "stating" would sound better than "saying."

—Bloom6132 (talk) 16:52, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done all I hope. Thanks for your comments. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 08:14, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – meets all criteria. Overall, an extremely impressive list. —Bloom6132 (talk) 10:03, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for reviewing. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 10:06, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Ref 1, 4, 8-11, 13-15, 17, 18, 20, 22, 37, 38 doesn't exist anymore. What makes Pagen News reliable? Afro (Talk) 07:05, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good to see you back! =) I removed the pagan page and replaced it with amazon (hope it is ok). I replaced the dead references with archived ones. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 09:03, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The retrieval dates need to be fixed now that the links have changed. You should be consistent in the date formats for the refs either "2009-03-30" or "28 March 2009". Afro (Talk) 10:30, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Every note should end with a full stop. Is ref 22 meant to be in relation to the notes or the 1980 winner itself? "Male Genitalia..." being "deliberately odd" was a columnists opinion it was deliberately boring though. Ref 15 still doesn't exist also 37 still doesn't exist and has no publisher. Afro (Talk) 10:59, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was told that incomplete sentences should not end with a period. I don't understand your second note. Will do the rest later. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 11:16, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding my second note On the ref "Judges appeared to suspect Pensoft of breaching a strict, 21-year-old rule that books must not be given boring titles simply as a ploy to win the contest." that appears to be the reason. "Perhaps the title was too odd," said the Bookseller magazine's columnist Horace Bent" seems to be what's credited in the notes. Afro (Talk) 21:03, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done. Also fixed the two refs. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 08:10, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support seems to meet the criteria. Afro (Talk) 09:49, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your review. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 09:56, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 15:28, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • sort keys are not visible at the moment, would remove the shading as there is no benefit to having it
  • "The following is a list of previous winners of the award." don't think this is necessary, obvious what it is
  • Some of the notes, in the notes column have full stops while others don't, be consistent
  • ref 14 does not direct to a page saying Midnight children won the award
  • ref 22 Mantex co has two full stops after it
  • ref 23 is not formatted properly, its an academic journal, so you need the author, and journal info
  • ref 26 why is the full book information used when its below in the further reading section? remove the info and turn further reading section into a bibliography
Further reading still needs to be changed to Bibliography. NapHit (talk) 14:44, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • As far as I can tell, the general reference does not appear to be from a reliable site, would replace with something else
  • ref 42 needs an access date
  • ref 37 has no publisher
  • really don't think we need four external links, especially one to twitter, two should suffice
  • would prefer if categories were organised alphabetically, this supposed to represent wikipedia's best work after all
  • Images need alt text

NapHit (talk) 13:24, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Done all. Thanks for your comments. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 08:24, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your comments and support. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 20:11, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, but two comments: while there's nothing technically wrong with redirect links, you have so many here that it starts to look a bit sloppy- diarist, champagne, claret, demographics of the PRC, graves, any link that uses an mdash instead of a hyphen (there's about ten of them), Kensingtons, Abrams books, etc. Also, why does the 98 entry have no description, and the 99 entry not actually describe the winner? As a final note, consider archiving the remaining online references, though as you have most of them done I assume it's intentional. I will say, speaking as an employee, that those Amazon links could die at any time if the seller stops selling that specific book through Amazon. --PresN 05:12, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any update on these points? Archiving websites strike me as an optional item, but if the redirects and descriptions could be fixed and explained that would be great. Giants2008 (Talk) 19:12, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most if not all of the current active sites don't have any archives. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 10:32, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, that is certainly understandable. How about the redirects and descriptions? Any comment on them, and whether they should be looked at? Giants2008 (Talk) 01:46, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The column states "Notes", so not necessary a description of the respective book. I replaced an m-dash with an n-dash. There is no description for some books because the title already conveys the information. Anyway, if this is a issue then I can add descriptions. I fixed the links. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 16:45, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure what is the issue here. Could you raise examples of how to improve the fur? Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 08:39, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • FURs need not be concise, but convincing, and they need to explain how the WP:NFCC are met, not merely assert that they are. For your convenience: The relevant guidelines are WP:NFC and WP:FUR. An example of a decent FUR can be found here. Goodraise 18:52, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about now? Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 12:56, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Slightly better. You have copied some applicable parts from the FUR I linked, but you still haven't given all the necessary answers. How are all of the NFCC met? Goodraise 18:46, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Elaborating: Your adjusted FUR does not state, for instance, whether the resolution of the image has been reduced. It does not state how much has been used. I'd assume this to be the entire logo, but the FUR says it's the "front". The front of what? Why can't this image be replaced by a free alternative or text?

    Ultimately, writing a proper FUR for the logo is a formality, although its resolution may have to be reduced. However, for the front cover doing so may not be possible. Using images only as a "means of visual identification" is already on the border, accepted for the main subject of an article, but not for list items. Goodraise 05:00, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't know if this file was reduced, etc, plus the url is dead. I will ask the main contributor: Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 12:38, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was under the impression that "the logo" is something people knowledgeable in this subject area would recognize. If so, it should be trivially simple to find it elsewhere. If on the other hand the image isn't widely used to represent this award, then it may not even be useful as a means of identification (which, as I pointed out above, is already a borderline NFCC violation). I'm really sorry that I have to be such a pain in the knee about this, but we need good reasons for using non-free media, especially for those used in featured articles and lists. Goodraise 11:54, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, NFCC is very awful and creepy. I removed both pictures from the article. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 12:15, 15 September 2012 (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/Bookseller/Diagram_Prize_for_Oddest_Title_of_the_Year/archive2&oldid=1089081644"