Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Hugo Award for Best Series/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 Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 20 September 2021 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Hugo Award for Best Series[edit]

Hugo Award for Best Series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): PresN 13:11, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Way back in 2010/2011, I pushed an entire set of a 15 lists through FLC around the Hugo Awards, oft-considered the premier award in scifi/fantasy literature. Since then, the awards have added a couple more categories, with one in 2012 (FL'd in 2015), and the newest in 2017: the Hugo Award for Best Series. This category is for entire (active) series of stories, and with its fifth year of awards coming up it's past time to get added to the set. This list follows the pattern set down by the other 16 Hugo lists, and to a lesser extent the other sff awards lists I've also done over the years. That said, it's been a few years since I brought one to FLC, so I'm open to any changes and will try to replicate them back across the other lists. Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 13:11, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
  • One-digit numbers should be spelled out (i.e., "three" instead of "3").
  • Reference 4 needs a more recent access date to be useful (2010 is too early to provide information for Best Series nominations).
  • Not sure why 1945 is wikilinked to 1944 in literature when no other years are wikilinked
  • "et. al." → "et al." (two occurrences)

— RunningTiger123 (talk) 13:28, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@RunningTiger123: All done, thanks! --PresN 13:16, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support – RunningTiger123 (talk) 15:59, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dank

  • Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
  • This assumes that other reviews reach some kind of resolution.
  • Consistency: Hugo Award vs. Hugo award
  • Fixed to always be capitalized.
  • Consistency: Retrospective Hugo Awards or Retro Hugos (and then "retrospective" can be inserted as an explanation, or "retro" can be inserted as a nickname)
  • Already present in the lead: {{tq|"beginning in 1996 Retrospective Hugo Awards, or "Retro Hugos", have...", and "Retro Hugos" is used thereafter
  • "the World Science Fiction Society created the concept of "Retro Hugos", in which the Hugo award could be retroactively awarded for years 50, 75, or 100 years before the current year": "created the concept" suggests that it's not a real award in some sense. If you don't want to cast doubt (or shade) on the award, maybe something like this would be better: the World Science Fiction Society awarded Retro (retrospective) Hugos ...
  • Reworded
  • "have been given for series for 1945": not sure what this means
  • Expanded
  • "for The Expanse series of eight novels": the "the" is doing double duty here; a little better would be "The Expanse, a series ...". Same here, later in the lead: add ", a" to "for The Expanse series".
  • Fixed
  • Checking the FLC criteria:
  • 1. The prose is fine. I've done a little copyediting; feel free to revert or discuss. The table coding seems fine. I checked sorting on all sortable columns and sampled the links in the table.
  • 2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
  • 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
  • 3b. The article is well-sourced to reliable sources, and the UPSD tool isn't indicating any problems (but this isn't a source review). All relevant retrieval dates are present.
  • 3c. The list meets requirements as a stand-alone list, it isn't a content fork, it doesn't largely duplicate another article (that I can find), and it wouldn't fit easily inside another article.
  • 4. It is navigable.
  • 5. It meets style requirements.
  • 6. It is stable.
  • Close enough for a support. Well done. - Dank (push to talk) 19:25, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Dank: Thanks for the review! --PresN 13:16, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review – Pass[edit]

Will do soon. Aza24 (talk) 02:13, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Version reviewed: [2]
Formatting
  • Fixed
Reliability
  • Seems fine; we've never rejected award lists from sourcing from the place that gives the awards in the past, so no issues.
Verifiability
  • Though I recognize there aren't actual page numbers in the documents, it seems less than ideal to cite an entire 20 and 25 page document. Could you perhaps include the pdf page numbers? I assumed for ref 1 this would include pages 8 & 9. Alternatively, you could cite "Section 3.3: Categories" or the section intended? Aza24 (talk) 02:28, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Aza24: Added the section title. Thanks for the source review! --PresN 13:16, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source review pass – Aza24 (talk) 18:05, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • "It was started then" - reads a bit clunkily. Maybe "It was first presented in that year"?
  • Done
  • "Retro Hugo Awards have been given for the series category one time" => "A Retro Hugo Award has been given for the series category once"
  • Done
  • "Initial nominations of five works each" => "Initial nominations of five series each".....?
  • Done
  • "James S. A. Corey (Daniel Abraham and Ty Franck)" => "James S. A. Corey (a pen-name for Daniel Abraham and Ty Franck)" for absolute clarity
  • Done
  • "the date of the ceremony, rather than when the story was first published" - "story" should be "series", I think, but not sure how the "first published" bit works in this context......
  • Fixed, for series it's "not the year that the 'last' (as of then) work was published", so I've clarified that it's not representing any given element of the series' publication date
  • Why is the Retro Hugo entry for The Cthulhu Mythos split across two lines, rather than just a single line showing "H. P. Lovecraft, August Derleth et al."? The latter is consistent with the source
  • Consistency across lists, mostly- while this is the only multi-author series in this list, it's rather common in other categories (such as the 2020 awards in the Novella category); the Hugo site puts the authors on a single line, but that doesn't work with sortable tables, so we break it up into multiple rows as a rule. This way, if Derlath was nominated for another Retro-Hugo, sorting the table by name puts all of their nominations next to each other even though one was in combination with Lovecraft. While that scenario seems less likely in this category, take for example Novellas again- Kuttner had a joint nomination in 2019, so by splitting up the rows, sorting by name puts his nomination next to his 2014 and 2020 nominations, instead of buried elsewhere with his co-author.
  • Both the source and our main article on the Hugos show Retro-Hugo with a dash
  • Ugh, I can never keep that in my head. Fixed.
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/Hugo_Award_for_Best_Series/archive1&oldid=1045322084"