Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Orange Prize for Fiction/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 Scorpion0422 21:28, 23 June 2009 [1].

Orange Prize for Fiction edit

Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (talk) 19:27, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

I am nominating this for featured list because I'm just really looking for things that are off my radar. In a few hours, I've tried to turn this from a collection of 3,145 bytes of unsourced facts to 14,329 bytes of extensively sourced information. The list is the article, i.e. this is no content fork, so hopefully it meets the expectations of the community, not only WP:WIAFL. So, all criticism gratefully received, and I'll do my best to act on all comments as soon as possible. Cheers y'all. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:27, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Crzycheetah
  • Comments
    • What was the award's name when it was founded?
    • An image in the lead would be great.
    • The first three columns can be sortable to find the entries easier.
    • Those three works that are redlinked can become stubs.
    • In 2005 the "Orange of Oranges" was awarded to Levy for Small Island - what's "orange of oranges"? Why is it listed in the 2004 row? Some explanation is needed
      • Explanation in lead. It is in the 2004 row because it's relevant to Levy and Small Island. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:16, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could you come up with some notes for 2005 and 2008? I hate seeing blank cells.

--Crzycheetah 21:33, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support The infobox is good enough for me.--Crzycheetah 20:43, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I think the Nominees column would look neater if you put names in bullet form —Chris! ct 04:10, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps, but it would also unnaturally elongate the table. I'm not that keen to implement this as the main focus should really be on the winners anyway. But perhaps we'll see what others think. Cheers for your comment. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:45, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. No objection to the list... but regarding the text, would it be possible to provide more context? The second paragraph has a lot of criticism but it could be more balanced with defenses or explanations of what they are referring to. What does "Lemon Prize" mean? is that supposed to be disparaging? The critics call it "sexist", is there a defense on why it was created for women only? It is a lot of criticism for something that is "one of the UK's most prestigious literary prizes"...basically why is it so prestigious if all the criticism is negative? Other suggestions:
    • "sponsored by Orange since then." - context on what Orange is.
    • "literary prizes, awarded annually for the best original full-length novel written in English by a female author" - perhaps "awarded to a female author for the best ..." would be a better order since the prize is awarded to the author, rather than the work. --maclean 02:13, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hey maclean, thanks so much for your comments. I've tried to address them as best I can - I've added some references for why the prize exists, both from the Orange website and an interview with Mosse. I've linked the "lemon" quote to Lemon (automobile) which, on the face of it may seem odd, but the meaning is correct. I've given Orange some context, i.e. what they actually do as a company, and I've reworded according to your second specific point. The prestige side of things, I had hoped, was covered by the four different references I have in the opening sentence of the lead. Are the edits I've made satisfactory, or could I do more? Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 08:27, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I still find it unbalanced. 'Prestigious' is a subjective adjective and what I'm looking for is why is it described as such. Yes, several media outlets label the award "prestigious". But they don't explain why it is prestigious. Is it the oldest? most lucrative? most sought after? does it have the largest following? BBC News has some redeemable content with its quote on why the author finds the award useful. However, the rest:
    • Irish Times - article about 2009 shortlist - does not expand beyond labelling the award "prestigious" in article title.
    • Telegraph - article about a winner - calls it powerful and prestigious and ends there.
    • Guardian - article about non-fiction - calls it "prestigious" and never comes back to it.
    • BBC News - article about 2007's winner - calls it "prestigious" and backs it up with quote from a past winner who believes the award led to more people reading her book.
From what I'm reading, half of the text is given to negative criticisms, and only one word of positive recognition. I get the Lemon thing now - I was totally on the fruit aspect and didn't think of the car connection (...so it is a hunk of metal that people accept not knowing it is defective and will cost them thousands of dollars to fix?). ----
Thanks once more maclean for your help. I've been away and I'm exhausted but I will do my best to read through the really helpful articles you've sent me in order to extract some nuggets that I can include that will meet your expectations of a fully balanced article. Any suggestions as to how best to phrase and structure the lead would be great. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:19, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for adding those advantages to the prize (significantly increased readership and sales). On the comprehensive side, could you also add a bit about the role of Mitsubishi (the Women's Studies article should help here) and Orange Broadband. Also, please clarify this sentence "libraries ... reported that "48% said that they had tried new writers..." - the libraries tried new writers? --maclean 07:37, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully I have covered these issues adequately now? Cheers once again. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:55, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
  • No need to link United Kingdom, or English language for that matter.
  • "The award was co-founded in 1996 by Kate Moss" Do we know the other co-founder?
  • "internet service provider"-->Internet service provider
  • "The 2005 winner, Lionel Shriver, revealed that she changed her name from Margaret Ann Shriver because she believed "men had an easier life"." Interesting, to say the least, but it seems out of place in that paragraph. Perhaps you could put it in the Notes section of the table?
  • More context on what a "leading" woman is?
    • Well it's a quote. I'll see if I can find an example of what this means, although it's borderline WP:OR if I decide who is a leading woman. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "along with the Man Booker Prize and the Costa Book Awards and whose nominees' sales are significantly boosted." Doesn't make grammatical sense.
  • "The 2007 shortlist was decried being derived from '... a lot of dross ...' by" "...decried for"
  • In the table, "This was Tremain's 14th novel" should have a period at the end.

Dabomb87 (talk) 21:37, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for your comments. Those I haven't immediately addressed will be attended to as soon as I feel better. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 06:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:37, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved issues from Rambo's Revenge (talk · contribs)
Comments from Rambo's Revenge (talk · contribs)

Good work, don't know how much you've had to change, but it is definitely in a good shape at the moment. Here are my nitpicks:

  • The winner is selected by a board of "five leading women" each year, can you expand a touch, because i'm guessing they are leading in something. I know the ref is vague, but I'm sure some wording can be found to show that they are not five leading gymnastics champions.
    • Actually they seem to drawn from all walks of life, I only use the quote because I believe that anything else I may write would be original research, i.e. second-guessing what Orange believes a "leading woman" to be. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:58, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • £, this is one of my pet hates. I think a reader would find the currency, £, more relevant than the sign.
  • in comparison to slightly over half a million – This is pretty arsey but I'm not sure I'd call 15½% more (577,691) "slightly". The preceding almost one million copies is about 8% which I'm slightly happier with.
  • Valerie Martin's 2003 success saw her novel sales increase tenfold after the award,[17] and British libraries, who often support the prize with various promotions, reported success in introducing people to new authors: any chance you can replace one of the "success"'s (probably the first) to avoid repetition of words in a sentence.
  • I think This was Tremain's 14th novel. and Robinson's third novel in 28 years is bordering on trivial information. Is it particularly relevant?
    • I (personally) think the relevance is clear enough, that Tremain's award came after a very long time and that Robinson took a very long time to write three novels, the third of which won the prize. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:58, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay I must admit I have no idea what a "normal" rate for writing books is. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 17:31, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I guess it varies from once per lifetime to once per six months. I felt that these two stats were sufficiently interesting (and are cited) so don't do much harm...! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:41, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prize renamed "Orange Prize for Fiction".This 2003 source seems to indicate it was already called "Orange Prize for Fiction" in 2003
    • Yes, it was renamed in 2007 for the broadband portion of Orange, before being renamed back in 2009 to simply Orange. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:01, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry I must of missed that, I'll leave it up to you whether you think the rename is worthy of inclusion in the lead. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 17:31, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I believe it is since when I picked this list up, it was called the Broadband Orange Prize... so I think it's useful information. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:41, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Sorry maybe my response was a bit criptic. What I meant was it isn't currently mentioned in the lead, and I'll leave it up to you whether to include it there as well. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:01, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Winners, shortlisted and longlisted books 1996 – 2007". Orange. Retrieved on 7 June 2009. Should have an ndash between dates—I also think there may be a case for taking liberties and making it "2008" per the refs content.
    • Actually I never change the title of web pages to match Wikipedia's MOS, the title is a copy-and-paste of the webpage's title. I don't recall a requirement for references to meet WP:MOS other than in their formatting, not their content. It's a little like quoting somebody who has made a grammatical or spelling error, all reference titles, dates, author names etc are [[[sic]]]. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:58, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm fine with not changing the title to 2009, but still think it should have a ndash. I think that change is analogous to changing allcaps references. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 17:31, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I haven't explicitly cross-checked the names and books with the references but will AGF for now.

Rambo's Revenge (talk) 20:52, 21 June 2009 (UTC) –Capped 22:32, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review! The Rambling Man (talk) 16:58, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. My comments were very picky in the first place, mainly because I couldn't find any obvious faults. All my comments have had an adequate response, and although I have responded to a couple they're all pretty much a matter of taste. This meets the criteria, so congratulations TRM on improving another list, which I believe should hopefully become your first FL since your return. I hope to see many more... Rambo's Revenge (talk) 17:31, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. As a compromise I'll modify that reference to comply with the MOS. No harm done either way really and if makes you happier then so much the better! Thanks for your comments and support. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:41, 22 June 2009 (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/Orange_Prize_for_Fiction/archive1&oldid=1143881300"