World Fantasy Award has been listed as one of the Language and literature good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||
World Fantasy Award is the main article in the World Fantasy Award series, a featured topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The controversy section is wildly biased. To assert that Lovecraft only showed racism in "some of his earlier works" is factually inaccurate. As is saying it was a "minor aspect of his personality." Further, to add quotations to the word controversy in the second paragraph here: "Lovecraft and Weird Fiction scholar S. T. Joshi has addressed this 'controversy' " seems to be an effort to discredit and marginalize the critique of him being the face of the award. Once more Wikipeadia is proving to be a vehicle for apologist of white supremacy and fraught with revisionist history. Pearl2525 ( talk) 19:32, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Please see
http://www.worldfantasy.org/awards/judges.html for the statement about comic book eligibility.
—Sharon
Sbarsky 15:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
This article says nothing about the four Special Awards, only names them and links our four WP:LISTs. In this respect it is a WP:STUB.
The four list prefaces say almost nothing and do not clearly distinguish them. Here they are in full! --except that there is a second "Professional" paragraph about comics (see above).
This article needs to cover the Special Awards generally and provide enough information to distinguish them from each other. Each list prefaces should cover its featured award in context of the entire WFA program --as well as local details such as the comics controversy.
-- P64 ( talk) 15:36, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Neptune's Trident ( talk · contribs) has been today repeatedly trying to insert a paragraph of Vox Day's opinions on the Lovecraft issue. Vox Day is nether an expert on Lovecraft (unlike Joshi) nor a spokesman for the awards, nor was his opinion repeated in a major newspaper; he is just a writer with a blog, among many many other writers and fans who have blogged their opinions on both sides of this issue. As such, my position is that we should not bother to give his opinion any special prominence on this issue. (It doesn't help that Day is better known as a white supremacist than as an author, but that's secondary.) On the other hand, if someone feels that our page should become a quote farm for all published authors who have said something on the subject on their personal blogs, I'd be interested in seeing the justification for that. — David Eppstein ( talk) 01:41, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: David Eppstein ( talk · contribs) 02:11, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
I expect this can be converted into a good article, and although I haven't yet taken the time to read carefully for these criteria it looks at first glance pretty good from the point of view of good article criteria #1, 2, and 4. And I think the Lovecraft controversy has by now died down enough that we can slip by on #5. However at present it seems there are some major topics missing that should be covered, and whose absence unbalances the article (good article criterion #3). One symptom of this is that the lead contains information (e.g. on the design of the award statuette and the location of recent award ceremonies) that is not a summary of later article content (GA criterion 1b). See in particular Academy Awards for another article on a similar topic (the top-level article on a long-established award with winners in multiple criteria and multiple sub-articles on individual years or categories) for what other topics should be covered. These include:
Additionally, I am not convinced by the current organization of the article, which lumps together a lot of different topics into the catchall and uselessly-titled "awards" section and includes an outrage-magnet "controversy" section that is so large in comparison to other topics that one might think the only thing the award generates is controversy. I think the subjects grouped in "Awards" might better be split into topics similar to those of the Academy Awards article: history, nominee and winner selection, and ceremony, and the physical award. The two controversies listed might better be split off into sections on award categories and the physical award, with some brief mention in a history section. — David Eppstein ( talk) 02:37, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
— David Eppstein ( talk) 00:29, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
All my concerns have been handled, so I'm passing this review. — David Eppstein ( talk) 18:40, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
201.252.204.192: you keep copying the paragraph in "Controversies" up to the lead, citations and all. Why? The lead is meant to be a summary of the rest of the article, so it wouldn't be appropriate to have the paragraph duplicated there, not to mention that a 25-year-old minor incident would be way over represented in the lead by a whole paragraph. The whole rest of the controversy section gets a single sentence, for example. -- Pres N 17:46, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
According to a press release out today, the board had chosen a new award design sculpted by Vincent Villafranca: a tree silhouetted against a golden moon. As a relative wiki newbie, I'm not sure if it's appropriate yet to change the main image. Also, I assume there will be articles written about the new design by tomorrow. User:Benji2012 ( talk) 4-13-17
World Fantasy Award has been listed as one of the Language and literature good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||
World Fantasy Award is the main article in the World Fantasy Award series, a featured topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The controversy section is wildly biased. To assert that Lovecraft only showed racism in "some of his earlier works" is factually inaccurate. As is saying it was a "minor aspect of his personality." Further, to add quotations to the word controversy in the second paragraph here: "Lovecraft and Weird Fiction scholar S. T. Joshi has addressed this 'controversy' " seems to be an effort to discredit and marginalize the critique of him being the face of the award. Once more Wikipeadia is proving to be a vehicle for apologist of white supremacy and fraught with revisionist history. Pearl2525 ( talk) 19:32, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Please see
http://www.worldfantasy.org/awards/judges.html for the statement about comic book eligibility.
—Sharon
Sbarsky 15:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
This article says nothing about the four Special Awards, only names them and links our four WP:LISTs. In this respect it is a WP:STUB.
The four list prefaces say almost nothing and do not clearly distinguish them. Here they are in full! --except that there is a second "Professional" paragraph about comics (see above).
This article needs to cover the Special Awards generally and provide enough information to distinguish them from each other. Each list prefaces should cover its featured award in context of the entire WFA program --as well as local details such as the comics controversy.
-- P64 ( talk) 15:36, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Neptune's Trident ( talk · contribs) has been today repeatedly trying to insert a paragraph of Vox Day's opinions on the Lovecraft issue. Vox Day is nether an expert on Lovecraft (unlike Joshi) nor a spokesman for the awards, nor was his opinion repeated in a major newspaper; he is just a writer with a blog, among many many other writers and fans who have blogged their opinions on both sides of this issue. As such, my position is that we should not bother to give his opinion any special prominence on this issue. (It doesn't help that Day is better known as a white supremacist than as an author, but that's secondary.) On the other hand, if someone feels that our page should become a quote farm for all published authors who have said something on the subject on their personal blogs, I'd be interested in seeing the justification for that. — David Eppstein ( talk) 01:41, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: David Eppstein ( talk · contribs) 02:11, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
I expect this can be converted into a good article, and although I haven't yet taken the time to read carefully for these criteria it looks at first glance pretty good from the point of view of good article criteria #1, 2, and 4. And I think the Lovecraft controversy has by now died down enough that we can slip by on #5. However at present it seems there are some major topics missing that should be covered, and whose absence unbalances the article (good article criterion #3). One symptom of this is that the lead contains information (e.g. on the design of the award statuette and the location of recent award ceremonies) that is not a summary of later article content (GA criterion 1b). See in particular Academy Awards for another article on a similar topic (the top-level article on a long-established award with winners in multiple criteria and multiple sub-articles on individual years or categories) for what other topics should be covered. These include:
Additionally, I am not convinced by the current organization of the article, which lumps together a lot of different topics into the catchall and uselessly-titled "awards" section and includes an outrage-magnet "controversy" section that is so large in comparison to other topics that one might think the only thing the award generates is controversy. I think the subjects grouped in "Awards" might better be split into topics similar to those of the Academy Awards article: history, nominee and winner selection, and ceremony, and the physical award. The two controversies listed might better be split off into sections on award categories and the physical award, with some brief mention in a history section. — David Eppstein ( talk) 02:37, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
— David Eppstein ( talk) 00:29, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
All my concerns have been handled, so I'm passing this review. — David Eppstein ( talk) 18:40, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
201.252.204.192: you keep copying the paragraph in "Controversies" up to the lead, citations and all. Why? The lead is meant to be a summary of the rest of the article, so it wouldn't be appropriate to have the paragraph duplicated there, not to mention that a 25-year-old minor incident would be way over represented in the lead by a whole paragraph. The whole rest of the controversy section gets a single sentence, for example. -- Pres N 17:46, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
According to a press release out today, the board had chosen a new award design sculpted by Vincent Villafranca: a tree silhouetted against a golden moon. As a relative wiki newbie, I'm not sure if it's appropriate yet to change the main image. Also, I assume there will be articles written about the new design by tomorrow. User:Benji2012 ( talk) 4-13-17