Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Copley Medal


 * 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 Matthewedwards 01:00, 25 February 2009.

Copley Medal

 * Nominator(s): Ironholds (talk)

Another RS medal: don't worry reviewers, only two more to go after this! then I start submitting the awards and lectures, mwahaha Ironholds (talk) 14:26, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Check the toolbox, there is a dab link and a couple of dead links. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:35, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Done; one of the deadlinks isn't dead, I don't know why the toolserver couldn't resolve it (possibly because it is a .pdf?) Ironholds (talk) 14:41, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments from 
 * Lead


 * Awarded every year, the medal is the oldest Royal Society medal still in use, having first been awarded in 1731 to Stephen Gray, who won his for "his new Electrical Experiments: - as an encouragement to him for the readiness he has always shown in obliging the Society with his discoveries and improvements in this part of Natural Knowledge" | who won his it would be better worded as 'who received his'
 * The Medal was created following a donation of £100 to be used for carrying out experiments by Sir Godgery Copley, something which the interest on the amount was used for for several years. | Remove extra for
 * Since the medal was created it has been awarded to a number of notable scientists, including 52 winners of various Nobel Prizes; 17 winners of the Nobel Prize in Physics, 21 winners of the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine and 14 winners of the Nobel Prize in Chemistry, including Frederick Sanger who won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry twice in 1958 and 1980 and was awarded the Copley Medal in 1977 "In recognition of his distinguished work on the chemical structure of proteins and his studies on the sequences of nucleic acids". | (1)Reword the beginning to 'Since its creation, the medal has been awarded...' (2)This sentence needs to be split, it makes up more than 80% of the last paragraph.
 * There is no mention of the most recent winner in the lead.
 * Recipients


 * Rudolph Peierls doesn't sort correctly alphabetically.
 * Entries that don't have a reference, what is verifying the rationale and the receiving of the award?
 * I'll try and be civil and polite here: they would be verified by the big "general reference" at the bottom. The process of instituting third party sources in a notes column for this sort of list was instituted at your request here where you also said quote "You don't necessarily have to find it for all of them, just some, at least to have diversity, and the ones that you can't find will be fine sourced with the general reference". My apologies if it is too much to expect a user to remember what changes they instigated. Ironholds (talk) 15:15, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Well then. I do remember that, however, I didn't think the general reference would be doing that since I didn't click on them. Something is wrong with the formatting, the general references should be that large, they should be like it is here.-- <  TRU CO  >   5 0 3 15:17, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You remember saying the general references would be fine but thought that rather than clicking on the general references here (which are named in exactly the same format as those at the Rumford Medal) it would be better to add a pointless thing to the list of corrections? Sizing error fixed.Ironholds (talk) 15:20, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Well excuse me. I'm just trying to help, you don't have to go on a frenzy on me just for forgetting a minor thing.-- <  TRU CO  >   5 0 3 15:30, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * My apologies, I went a bit OTT; when at the urging of a reviewer you have found 156 third-party sources for something and are then told you need more things tend to get a bit.. heated. Ironholds (talk) 15:35, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Well just keep your cool next time.-- <  TRU CO  >   5 0 3 15:36, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * References


 * Make it into one or two columns because ref states that not all browsers have the ability to see it in 3 columns.
 * Ref #4, the publisher is not nobelprize.org its the 'Nobel Foundation': make that for all references from this source.
 * Some of the Universities should be linked because I see other that are linked, so either add links or remove them for consistency purposes.
 * Ref #76 should be cited with cite book not cite web
 * How reliable is nobel-winners.com? Its not affiliated with the Nobel Foundation, which makes its reliability questionable. <  TRU CO  >   5 0 3 15:02, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * All but the last three points are done; the third I'm working on finding an alternate source, the first two: 1) can you give an idea of which universities are not linked, and 2) #76 is a website. Ironholds (talk) 15:51, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * (1)Never mind, I thought you were linking each one in every occurrence, but you just linked it on its first occurrence. (2)Yes, but its on a book. Cite book does the same thing, place the URL where it is required and fill in the according information.-- <  TRU CO  >   5 0 3 16:04, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No, 76 is definitely not a book. 73 is, if that is the one you mean? Ironholds (talk) 16:26, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * My bad. I meant 77.-- <  TRU CO  >   5 0 3 19:12, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Done, that seems to be everything. Ironholds (talk) 19:16, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Followup comments
 * The statement about the most recent winner should state the year to define what recently means.
 * Why does the last sentence in the lead state Sir Roger and not by the person's last name? Just seems odd to me.-- <  TRU CO  >   5 0 3 00:24, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I've done the first one; as for the second I have no idea; unless you think I this guy on speed dial I'm not sure what you want me to do about it. Ironholds (talk) 01:10, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * List the Roger guy by his last name.-- TRU  CO   02:19, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You mean in the quote? Ironholds (talk) 02:20, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I didn't see that was a part of the quote. TRU  CO   02:30, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Support | Problems resolved to meet WP:WIAFL. TRU  CO   02:30, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Support - Lead looks good after a lookover. Meets WAIFL (waffle?). NuclearWarfare  ( Talk ) 01:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Support - I remember seeing these in the nominators userspace, and remember this as the longest one. I can't see errors with the list, yet another quality Royal Society list from Ironholds. Sunderland06  (talk) 22:09, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Heh, thanks. Sounds like an advertisement "yet another good quality list from Ironholds! Oh what WILL that man think of next? Order now and receive free shipping." Ironholds (talk) 02:19, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Sources
 * "been changed a number of times"-->been changed a several times
 * "A second donation of £1666 13s. 4d." What do the "s" and "d" stand for?
 * "Since its creation"-->Since its inception
 * "including 52 winners of various Nobel Prizes"
 * "These include Frederick Sanger who was awarded"-->These include Frederick Sanger, who was awarded
 * "and is one of only four people"
 * "having won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry twice in 1958 and 1980" Dabomb87 (talk) 01:20, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * All done. Ironholds (talk) 06:25, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * All web citations that are PDFs should have  added to their templates. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:20, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * All corrected. Ironholds (talk) 06:25, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.