Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Nobel Prize/archive2


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 17:03, 3 April 2010.

Nobel Prize

 * Nominator(s): Esuzu  ( talk  •  contribs ) 11:17, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Nobel Prize is a important part in Wikipedia. Many articles link to it and if a person has received the Nobel Prize it is bound to be mentioned in the lead (even in Winston Churchill who undoubtedly did greater things than win a Nobel Prize). That is why I am nominating this article a second time, the last time the major problems were sources and images and I believe those have been addressed. Esuzu ( talk  •  contribs ) 11:17, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comments. A dab link to Berling ; no dead external links. Ucucha 11:22, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Was supposed to be Berlin. Changed it. Esuzu  ( talk  •  contribs ) 12:36, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Ucucha 12:46, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Surely the most notoriously "overlooked people" controversies of recent decades are Rosalind Franklin, who missed out when Watson and Crick got theirs for dna and Graham Greene who one of the judges had supposedly taken against. Neither is mentioned. (ec)One would also expect the controversies over Barak Obama and Henry Kissinger to be mentioned. Prose needs a bit of polishing - eg "oriiginating" in the first sentence. Johnbod (talk) 12:00, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Rosalind Franklin is mentioned: "Rosalind Franklin, who was a key contributor in the discovery of the structure of DNA in 1953, died of ovarian cancer in 1958, four years before the achievement was recognised by awarding Francis Crick, James D. Watson, and Maurice Wilkins the Prize for Medicine or Physiology in 1962." It doesn't mention Greene but I'll look into it. But he's probably not the most notorious "overlooked people" but he might deserve a mention. -- Esuzu ( talk  •  contribs ) 12:13, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * As to what you added: First of all, I can't see any problem with "originating in" seems completely grammatical to me.
 * Yes, the article has had no section about "Controversial Recipients". It is located on Nobel Prize controversies but it might be good to have some of them present on the main page as well. Anybody who has any opinions? -- Esuzu ( talk  •  contribs ) 14:03, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Update: I have written a section that can be inserted to the Nobel Prize articles controversies section now it is the first thing you see when you click on this link Nobel Prize controversies. Since the Nobel Prize article doesn't allow new sections just to be put in in the main articles controversies section directly I have to have some support before I do it. What do you think? -- Esuzu ( talk  •  contribs ) 15:53, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I have now added the new section and a new image. Please take a look. -- Esuzu ( talk  •  contribs ) 23:16, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment Is it "Nobel Prize" or "Nobel prize"? I changed two instances of the latter to the former, I think, but then gave up because there were so many..&bull; Ling.Nut 10:57, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It should be as you say, "Nobel Prize". Changed the ones that was incorrect. Thanks. -- Esuzu ( talk  •  contribs ) 14:31, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments from


 * Images
 * 1) I was reviewing the Nobel images as fine then began questioning things for File:NobelPrize.JPG and File:Nobel Prize.png. I'm know a bit about images but would like someone (a lawyer?) to clarify the position with these as it is complicated.
 * 2) *The (Nov 2008) photograph is of a "3d" work but is released into the public domain so that is fine.
 * 3) *The design was decided in 1902, and published pre-1923 so that bit is okay.
 * 4) *The design was changed in 1980 but this image of a design prior to that so is okay.
 * 5) *This is a 1950 medal (presumably cast after 1923) and I know there is no originality in making images. My question is whether there sufficient originality in creating a replica (i.e. casting a medal) to make this medal copyright when it was made? This suggests not but is not really backed up by anything. Is there a court case or license to cover this? Basically, even if the image is okay the licensing needs tightening. I'm prepared to do it if someone asserts I am correct but this is a legal thing and I don't want to put myself in the wrong position.
 * Turns out this has got plenty of attention in the past it just isn't linked to from the current images.
 * Talk:Nobel_Prize/Archive 1 (September 2006)
 * File talk:Nobel medal dsc06171.png (various discussions)
 * Media copyright questions/Archive/2007/November (November 2007)
 * That would be very helpful. I'm not a lawyer neither am I very good at image licensing. So before I nominated the article I asked User:Elcobbola on the talk page of Nobel Prize: Talk:Nobel Prize. From his response there I understood it was OK to use but perhaps not. How do we find somebody, like a lawyer or similar who could help us with this? Esuzu  ( talk  •  contribs ) 11:47, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Media copyright questions, or perhaps try User:MGodwin, someone who represents the Wikipedia Foundation and I think may have past involvement with these discussions. Rambo's Revenge (talk)  12:03, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I've contacted Mike Godwin so hopefully we can get some help from him :) Esuzu  ( talk  •  contribs ) 13:33, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * This is the answer I got: "In general, merely casting a replica of an out-of-copyright image is not regarded as original enough to create new copyrightability. Assuming the facts are as you report them, I think you are fine.

--Mike" Esuzu  ( talk  •  contribs ) 22:28, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * File:Paul Krugman-press conference Dec 07th, 2008-8.jpg and File:Giovanni Jona-Lasinio-Nobel Lecture-2.jpg state that "This file is published under the following Creative Commons license: Attribution NonCommercial ShareAlike 2.0". Wikipedia requires commercial use, but the images have also been attempted as licensed under GFDL-1.2. User seems active so might be worth contacting to clarify.
 * Contacted the user so hopefully we'll get an answer soon. -- Esuzu ( talk  •  contribs ) 12:00, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, there is nothing to clarify, the file has simply two licenses to choose from. Since the file is published under GFDL-1.2 only commercial use is possible. --Prolineserver (talk) 15:34, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay thanks for clarifying. It isn't something I've seen before. As for File:Alfred Nobels will-November 25th, 1895.jpg I am I right in thinking it isn't actually a PD work and that this change reflects the actual status of a (potentially copyrightable) photographic reproduction released by you. Rambo's Revenge (talk)  16:28, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Other images seem fine. Rambo's Revenge (talk)  02:10, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, if you want I just release my part of the will as PD, I want to put it on a stable license basis rather than support a stupid Swedish copyright regulation. --Prolineserver (talk) 20:55, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


 * References
 * References that link to Bibliography e.g. 8. Elizabeth T Crawford ..., 69. Irwin Abrams ..., and many others. These should be listed Surname, Forname consistently like ref 11.
 * Formatted them correctly. -- Esuzu ( talk  •  contribs ) 23:09, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Ref 10 needs accessdates
 * Fixed, wasn't written correctly. Esuzu ( talk  •  contribs ) 12:32, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Ref 23 Alfred Nobel. "Alfred Nobel's Will (English version)" needs tidying up
 * Reformatted. That should be enough right? Esuzu  ( talk  •  contribs ) 12:38, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Ref 38 (news.bbc.co.uk, Nobel prize for viral discoveries) needs citation template to format correctly
 * Reformatted. Esuzu  ( talk  •  contribs ) 12:53, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Same goes for ref 41 (The Nobel Prize in Chemistry 2008)
 * Reformatted. Esuzu  ( talk  •  contribs ) 12:53, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


 * And 94 (Nobel Prize Foundation Website)
 * Reformatted. Esuzu  ( talk  •  contribs ) 12:53, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Use links in references. For example link to The Local in ref 96 (Nobel Banquet: the feast of feasts – The Local) instead of writing "Thelocal.se"
 * Will reformat all that needs it. I am currently on the history section and will continue later. -- Esuzu ( talk  •  contribs ) 14:51, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Done! Took some time but all should be linked now that can be linked. -- Esuzu ( talk  •  contribs ) 22:51, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


 * What makes http://www.ceptualinstitute.com/ a reliable source?
 * Not very much. Replaced by somewhat more reliable  Esuzu  ( talk  •  contribs ) 12:57, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Ref 128 (Remarks by the President on Winning the Nobel Peace Prize). Format to say where it is from. Don't say "the same day".
 * Reformatted. Esuzu ( talk  •  contribs ) 13:04, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Ref 132: Not dead, but does need citation template etc. so it is correctly formatted.
 * Reformatted. Esuzu ( talk  •  contribs ) 13:12, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Ref 133: "5:34 p.m. ET" is not the author
 * Reformatted. Esuzu  ( talk  •  contribs ) 13:12, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Ref 145 (Akademien väljer helst en europé) needs formatting as proper reference. Also add the  field.
 * Reformatted. Esuzu ( talk  •  contribs ) 13:23, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

This isn't comprehensive and issues like odd/inconsistent linking, not putting Surname first seem to recur regularly. Rambo's Revenge (talk)</b>  11:38, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Just some examples of prose which isn't of a professional standard:
 * Prose
 * "After the award ceremonies banquets are held at the Stockholm City Hall and the Grand Hotel in Oslo." full stop?
 * Semicolon is better right? Esuzu ( talk  •  contribs ) 12:11, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


 * "Al Gore and the IPCC, 2007 winners of the Nobel Peace Prize, have had the validity of their winning of the prize disputed as well as being politically motivated." What is politically motivated
 * Removed. Would take too much space to explain. Esuzu  ( talk  •  contribs ) 12:07, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


 * "Before 1930, the banquet was held in the ballroom of Stockholm’s Grand Hotel." Which banquet, all of them or the Peace prize one as the preceding sentence indicates there are many.
 * The Swedish banquet. Changed it in the text. Esuzu  ( talk  •  contribs ) 12:16, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


 * "10th of December" don't use th and of
 * Fixed. Couldn't find any more similar problems either.


 * "The recipients' lectures are held in the days prior to the award ceremony." - you later say this isn't always the case
 * Fixed. Esuzu  ( talk  •  contribs ) 12:24, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


 * "Since 1902, the King of Sweden has presented all the prizes in Stockholm" how can he if the Peace Prize is in Norway.
 * Clarified. Esuzu  ( talk  •  contribs ) 12:27, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

These were found without really reading the article and came from just one section. This only passed GA the other day and is a long way off FA standard. Suggest withdrawing and getting this peer reviewed.
 * Perhaps. How do I withdraw it? Esuzu  ( talk  •  contribs ) 13:19, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Just tell one of the FAC delegates, here for example, User Talk:SandyGeorgia. Graham Colm (talk) 14:13, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I oppose the promotion of this article because currently it fails 1a and 2c (at least). <b style="color:#E32636;">Rambo's Revenge</b> <b style="color:#FFA500;">(talk)</b>  11:38, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose -sorry. The article is far from FA standard, the prose is clunky and not at all engaging. The long quotation from Nobel's will spoils the look of the article and adds very little. It might make a useful footnote. There are odd expressions like "happens to die", which presumably just means "dies" and more worrying, inaccuracies. Frederick Sanger did not receive his second prize for "in 1980 for virus nucleotide sequencing", he was awarded it for inventing a method of determining the nucleotide base sequences of all DNA. And, to say he got his first for "the structure of the insulin molecule" is lazy prose; he determined what the structure was. These errors made me lose confidence in the article's overall accuracy. The gallery of the 2009 winners seems most out of place and although not quite contravening WP:NPOV, it goes against the spirit of it. Only time will tell who were worthy recipients. The Lead is also very poor, with all those blue links, and this "The Nobel Prizes in the specific disciplines (physics, chemistry, physiology or medicine, and literature) and the Prize in Economics are widely regarded as the most prestigious award one can receive in those fields", while repeating the categories already given a couple of lines above, just means the prizes for peace and economics are not regarded as prestigious, which I don't think is true. Because of the subject, I was looking forward to reading this contribution, but I was disappointed; it's a very dull read. Graham Colm (talk) 17:13, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Please clarify what isn't WP:NPOV with the gallery?
 * About the "The Nobel Prizes in the specific disciplines (physics, chemistry, physiology or medicine, and literature) and the Prize in Economics are widely regarded as the most prestigious award one can receive in those fields" sentence. I believe all of them is prestigious too. I'll change the sentence. Would "The Nobel Prizes in the specific disciplines are widely regarded as the most prestigious award one can receive in those fields." be better? That way it includes all the prizes. Also fixed the "happen to die".
 * Fixed Sanger part. OK now?
 * No, it wasn't "nucleic acids" it was just DNA.
 * Changed it. Esuzu  ( talk  •  contribs ) 12:55, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * About the citation from his last will. I'd wouldn't be against removing that one either. That together with the "Lack of a Nobel Prize in Mathematics" section is probably the weakest. However when I tried to remove the latter I was met with people who wanted to keep it extremely badly. I'd say it is enough to have it on the Controversies page. Anybody have opinions? -- Esuzu ( talk  •  contribs ) 23:15, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Further comments– The use of "prize" and "Prize" is inconsistent throughout the article. I saw "the peace prize", "Peace Prize" and even "the prizes has" (sic). Graham Colm (talk) 10:05, 3 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment You have one link to "Discover magazine", no other info. Yesterday I couldn't access it. If it's accessible, it needs to be fully specified; if not, it needs to be rmv'd.. It seems as though you've been working on the references. That's good; they were looking a little rough a few days ago. You give the full title of every book in every reference. You are free to do so, but is it necessary? Forex, I count 16 instances of "The Nobel prize: a history of genius, controversy, and prestige"... wouldn't that clutter the page a bit, and conceivably slow load times? &bull; Ling.Nut 03:08, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I've fixed the Discover Magazine reference. It is accessible for me at least. Might have been temporary down-time perhaps. About the book refs: I've been planning on doing that too. Since they link to the book directly it should be enough to have the name perhaps. Thanks Esuzu ( talk  •  contribs ) 09:19, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I have now reformatted all refs. Looks a lot neater now. Esuzu  ( talk  •  contribs ) 09:33, 3 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.