Talk:List of Turner Prize winners and nominees

	List of Turner Prize winners and nominees is a featured list, which means it has been identified as one of the best lists produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones Date Process Result June 16, 2009 Featured list candidate Not promoted July 8, 2009 Featured list candidate Promoted
Current status: Featured list

This article is rated FL-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Lists This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Awards Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Awards, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of awards and prizes on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AwardsWikipedia:WikiProject AwardsTemplate:WikiProject Awardsawards articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale. London Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers. This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist. [[Turner prize#Criticism|criticism]] The anchor (#Criticism) is no longer available because it was deleted by a user before. Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Shouldn't there be a column listing the piece/work that won the prize? Or is that not the basis of a victory? Seegoon (talk) 18:49, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, per the lead, it's awarded to "a British artist under fifty for an outstanding exhibition or other presentation of their work in the twelve months preceding." i.e. not for one specific piece. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:51, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It could list the specific show or presentation. However, in the early years of the prize that was not the criterion anyway. Ty 04:01, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• "has become one of the United Kingdom's most prestigious etc." Neater to say "is one of etc".
  • Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:08, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• "Originally there was no age restriction, but from 1991 it was restricted to artists under 50." Implies it was always for artists only. Initially it was for open to others such as critics and curators. This needs to be integrated with the passage "Initially the prize was awarded to the individual who etc".
  • Repetition removed, but most likely all will change soon when the lead is reworked. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:30, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• "The winner is chosen by a jury of four independent judges and the director of the Tate Britain". Might be better "four independent judges chosen/invited by the Tate and chaired by the director of Tate Britain." However, 1984-2006 it was chaired by the director of the Tate, 2007 by the director of Tate Liverpool, 2008 and 2009 by the director of Tate Britain.[1] (Tate Britain didn't exist till 2000.)
  • Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:52, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• "The award is accompanied by a prize of £25,000." Initially it was £10,000, doubled to £20,000 in 1991 with new sponsor Channel 4.[2] Then later increased again. The rest of the sentence about the prize money is sloppy.
  • Happy to take suggestions. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:52, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• "A shortlist of finalists is drawn up and usually published about six months before the prize is awarded." This is what happens now, but I would like confirmation that it was published in this way in the early years. The Tate says, "In 1988 it was decided not to announce the shortlist publicly, and instead of an exhibition of work by shortlisted artists, the winner was offered a solo show the following year. In 1989 the jury published a list of seven 'commended' artists. The shortlist was reinstated in 1991, and restricted to three or four artists."[3]
  • Notes added. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:31, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• The prize is now awarded for a previous show held during the twelve month period preceding the choice of nominees, but this was not always the case.
  • I've stated the main criteria given by the Tate which changed from person to artist. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:31, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• There is a muddle per some of the above points because the prize has changed its procedures over the years. It should be clear as to whether a statement applies to the prize throughout, or only to its present form.
  • Hopefully not too bad now. Anything specific? The Rambling Man (talk) 07:31, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• "has suffered considerable criticism". Perhaps "has received criticism".
  • Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:08, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• "including Prince Charles' letter of support to Kim Howells, who had described the Turner Prize as "conceptual bullshit". Prince Charles wrote of the award that "[i]t has contaminated the art establishment for so long"." Neater to avoid repetition (and give date also + Howells's position): "In 2002, after Culture Minister Kim Howells described the Turner Prize as "conceptual bullshit", Prince Charles wrote to him that "It has contaminated the art establishment for so long"."
  • Rephrased. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:36, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• "In 2008, the Stuckists art group etc." They have demonstrated annually since 2000 against the prize, not just 2008.[4]
  • Added. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:30, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• "Several winners of the prize have won etc." Better at the beginning of the following paragraph.
  • Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:52, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• "While auction prices for previous winners have generally increased, some artists, including Sarah Lucas and Julian Opie, have decided not to participate in the event." Two completely separate statements, not connected as implied by the sentence construction. Needs two sentences.
  • Seperated. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:52, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Paragraphs need structuring: 1) Intro 2) procedures, prize money etc 3) info relating to winners 4) criticisms (or something like that)
  • I think I've done that. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:52, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Pressure on nominees being in a "media circus" should be mentioned (see material now on talk page.
  • Added more material on pressure. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:52, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Reinstate photo of Tracey Emin, as she is singled out in the text and more memorable in the prize than most of the winners.
  • Okay. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:08, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Please view the page on a low res screen, say 800 x 600. It is then obvious why the images should be at the bottom of the page, not down the side: the table is horribly cramped.
  • I am viewing on a really low resolution (1024 x 768) and it's fine. Gallerys are discouraged generally, so we either have the images down the side or none at all. I think 1024 x 768 is really low and 800 x 600 is used by virtually no-one. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:08, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Previous discussions on the subject have pointed to the fact that in a world wide audience not everyone can update their computer, also that even lower res screens are in use, including mobile access to the internet. However
      WP:IG. I haven't seen any lists with galleries underneath, but I do not see anything to forbid this usage either. However, per List of sultans of the Ottoman Empire another solution would be to reduce the image size (to 80px) and incorporate images in the table in the notes column (or else an image column). Ty 01:34, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • Okay, but we have images of only three of the winners. The image column you are referring to would presumably only be for winners or would you have column(s) for nominees as well? Winners only would, once again, remove Emin's image. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:50, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • As we are not likely to get free images of all the winners, I think inclusion in the notes column at 80px would be best. Worth trying at least. Ty 12:43, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Images in notes column. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:52, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Several refs don't have the date of publication, e.g. ref. 11, Daily Telegraph which is 13 Nov 2008.
  • All references do have the date of publication using the date field - check again! The Rambling Man (talk) 14:08, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • My mistake. I'm used to the format per ref 26: What's the point of the Turner Prize?". The Independent. 2 October 2007. http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/this_britain/article3019128.ece. Retrieved on 2009-05-31. (NB minor date format inconsistency there.)
      • Gotcha. As long as the dates are same format throughout all refs, it meets MOS. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:50, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• 1991 "Scultpure" typo.
  • Fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:08, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• 2007 Seems an anomaly to just have one winning exhibit named in the notes column. Maybe some more notable ones also, e.g. Hirst.
  • Hirst included with link to image. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:53, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Refs. Surely these should go by the material they are supporting, not in a separate column at the end of the line, as it's not clear which bit of the line they refer to.
  • Conventional for featured lists to use this approach. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:08, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • This would seem to be the case, though it's not as helpful as specific ref tied to specific information. Ty 01:34, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well on lists, there are so many facts in each row, i.e. you'd end up having to add a reference to each nominee's name, for instance. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:51, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sorry, I'm revisiting this after checking out more at
          WP:FL and I see that some lists do not use a dedicated ref column, e.g. List of castles in Greater Manchester and The Libertines discography. Refs at the end of the row (or top of the column) would be OK if they covered all the material they pertain to, but this is not the case with the rows. Where there are two refs, it's not possible to see which one refers to which info. I also found some things that weren't covered at all by the ref(s) at the end of the row. I think this list needs to be along the lines of The Libertines discography, i.e. refs in column headings are appropriate for list of winners and nominees (assuming all came from the same source), but certain other info needs an individual ref. Ty 12:40, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
          ]

Ty 11:34, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • • • All references moved to "more appropriate" locations. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:52, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your extensive and honest comments. I would hate for my prose to be "sloppy" so I'll try to work all your comments into a complete revision of the lead. It will be a couple of days before I can do anything substantial as I'm currently away. I've made a couple of responses to some of your more straightforward issues. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:18, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for being blunt there. Ty 01:34, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ty, do you think moving the notes to a proper footnotes section would address some of your concerns over table squashing? It would remove the notes column, add some [nb 1] etc to the refs col and then send the information to below the table, expanding out the space for winners and nominees names. It may make the images down the right-hand side more palatable for you? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:06, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See comments on images above. I think notes need to be in the appropriate row. Otherwise it's very inconvenient for the reader going up and down the page all the time. The notes are invaluable for giving some identity and context to just a list of names. I'd be happy to see more info. Ty 01:34, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The Format column needs some tweaking. 1984 "Painting". 1986 not painting. Tate's The Turner Prize book (TTPB) calls them "photo-pieces". Maybe "Photomontage". 1989 TTPB says "Sculpture". 1995 "Conceptual" redundant, implied by "Installation". 1998 "Painting (mixed media)" is a succint way of defining it. 2001 "Installation" technically. 2002 "Installation, painting". 2004 "Video, installation". 2005 "Installation". 2006 "Painting". 2007 "Installation". 2008 "Sculpture, film, sound, performance".[5] I think that's the basics, which could be refined further. Ty 02:06, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:53, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quickly, my apologies for not attending to your extensive and comprehensive review 100% as yet. I've been away and now I'm home I'm exhausted - your comments deserve my full attention and I hope you'll be prepared to work with me on the lead to assure your satisfaction. I'm not at all convinced that images in the notes column will work so we need to find a resolution to that. For such a prominent list, we need to get as close to perfection as we can but we also must consider that there's a main article which could (could) contain some of the more generic material discussed here. However, as long as I am able, I will endeavour to improve the list up to featured status. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:19, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem whatsoever. Don't feel under any time pressure, as far as I'm concerned - I prefer a slower pace - and let me know if I can be of any help. I tried out images in the notes column. I think it works much better like that. Although there can't be images for every year, I feel that having some will draw the reader into what would otherwise be a stark table, and help them to locate where they are in it. There are some other suggested changes, which will be apparent from the diff. 19995 - nominees to be sorted alphabetically. Format column to be sortable. Some extra notes, particularly about artists previously nominated. Non-breaking spaces in key names, so Winners and Nominees columns display each name on a single line. The mention of Madonna is one thing that could be left to the main article. Ty 01:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of Turner Prize winners and nominees. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091010153545/http://www.royalacademy.org.uk/academicians/sculptors/anish-kapoor-ra%2C110%2CAR.html to http://www.royalacademy.org.uk/academicians/sculptors/anish-kapoor-ra%2C110%2CAR.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111127140044/http://www.balticmill.com/whatsOn/future/ExhibitionDetail.php?exhibID=148 to http://www.balticmill.com/whatsOn/future/ExhibitionDetail.php?exhibID=148

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:29, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of Turner Prize winners and nominees. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090109131913/http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/this_britain/article3019128.ece to http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/this_britain/article3019128.ece

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:52, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of Turner Prize winners and nominees. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to https://www.theguardian.com/pictures/image/0,8543,-11004194503,00.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081019212913/http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601088 to https://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601088&sid=atked90EZ9lw&refer=home

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:49, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]