User:Lwjt2d/sandbox

Currently working on Académie des sciences with Austin Klug

Article addition for the French Academy of Sciences

The Academy of Sciences traces its origin to Colbert's plan to create a general academy. He chose a small group of scholars who met on 22 December 1666 in the King's library, and thereafter held twice-weekly working meetings there.

The Academy of Sciences traces its origin to Colbert's plan to create a general academy. He chose a small group of scholars who met on 22 December 1666 in the King's library, near the present-day Bibliothèque Nationals, and thereafter held twice-weekly working meetings there in the two rooms assigned to the group.

Decline of the Academy Drafting Notes
I have shifted my focus of the project to the decline of scientific power that the academy experienced after world war 1:

After World war one, the reputation and status of the Academy was largely questioned. One factor of decline was the development from a meritocracy to gerontocracy, in other words; a shift from people with scientific ability leading the Academy to people who had been there longer leading it. It became known as a sort of “hall of fame” that lost control, real and symbolic, of the professional scientific diversity in France at the time. (crosland, p 435). (This source didn't come in due to covid-19 restrictions, For now I pulled this info from this source for now)

French Academy of Sciences Drafting Notes

 * August 8th, 1793: National Convention passed legislation targeting all French Academies (Chapin)
 * Quickly became a model of a successful scientific society
 * Original members were called "Pensionaries"
 * Academy was originally organized Hierarchically: Pensionaries ← Associates ← Students

French Academy of Sciences Drafting

On 20 January 1699, Louis XIV gave the Company its first rules. The Academy received the name of Royal Academy of Sciences and was installed in the Louvre in Paris. Following this reform, the Academy began publishing a volume each year with information on all the work done by its members and obituaries for members who had died. This reform also codified the method by which members of the Academy could receive pensions for their work

Addition:

This reform also codified the method by which members of the Academy could receive pensions for their work and set official regulations on membership of those involved in the academy. The academy was originally organized by the royal reform hierarchically into the following groups:

Pensionaires, Pupils, Honoraires, Associés

The reform also added new groups not previously recognized, such as Vétéran. Some of these role's member limits were expanded and some roles even removed or combined throughout the course of academy's history. The Honoraires group establish by this reform in 1699 whose members were directly appointed by the King was recognized until it's abolishment in 1793.

Membership in the academy only exceeded 100 officially recognized full members in 1976, 310 years after the academy's inception in 1666.

Membership in the academy is highly geared towards representing common French populace demographics. French population increases and changes in the early 21st century lead to the academy expanding reference population sizes by reform in the early 2002. The overwhelming majority of members leave the academy posthumously, with a few exceptions of removals, transfers, and resignations. The last member to be removed from the academy was in 1944. Removal from the academy was often for not preforming to standards, not preforming at all, leaving the country, or political reasons. In some rare occasions, a member has been elected twice and subsequently removed twice. This is the case for Marie-Adolphe Carnot.

Election Process:

The election process was at least a 6 stage process with rules and regulations that allowed for chosen candidates to canvas and for current members to consider postponing certain stages of the process to allow for any specified reason. Elections in the early days of the academy were important activities, and as such made up a large part of the proceedings at the academy, with many meetings being held regarding the election to fill a single vacancy within the academy. That is not to say that discussion of candidates and the election process as a whole was relegated to the meetings. Members that belonged to the vacancy's respective field would continue discussion of potential candidates for the vacancy in private. Being elected into the Academy didn't necessarily guarantee being a full member, in some cases, one would enter the academy as an associate or correspondent before being appointed as a full member of the academy. The election process was originally only to replace members from a specific section, for example, if someone who's study was mathematics was either removed or resigned from his position, the following election process nominated only those who's focus was also mathematics in order to fill that discipline's vacancy. This lead to some periods of time where they couldn't find specialists for specific fields of study, and had to have positions in those fields vacant, unable to fill them with people in other disciplines. But after reform in 1987, the academy decided against the practice, favoring filling vacancies with people with new disciplines. This reform was not only aimed at further diversifying the disciplines under the academy, but also to help combat the internal aging of the academy itself.

Review by K8shep (talk) 13:14, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
1. What does the article do well? Is there anything from your review that impressed you? Any turn of phrase that described the subject in a clear way? Good additions here! I like the flow chart you made. Keep up this kind of work. 2. What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement? I wonder about the direction of the flow chart? Since in English we read left to right, you might make the arrows go in the right direction. Would that mean reversing the order of the words, too? Probably. Make sure you're citing your sources at the end of each sentence. 3. What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article? So far, this is really good! You might think about linking to other wikipedia pages or adding an image?

Article evaluation: Karl Rudolph Koenig

 * 1) All included in the article was relevant. Some spelling errors.
 * 2) Article is neutral, but some subjective terms.
 * 3) Considering he was known for his acoustic research, I wouldn’t consider it over represented, but I would like more information regarding more of his inventions.
 * 4) All sources are sources included work and are relevant, except for the artifact spotlight
 * 5) Not all info has sources, and even some lack any info at all. The sources provided are neutral and come from Kenyon college.
 * 6) included information isn’t out of date, but is lacking details. Specifically details about his later life and death in Paris.
 * 7) No activity on the article’s talk page.
 * 8) Article is rated as intermediate, and is not part of any wikiprojects.
 * 9) We have not discussed this topic in class.