Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Davy Medal/archive1


 * 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 Scorpion0422 22:19, 4 April 2009.

Davy Medal

 * Nominator(s): &mdash; neuro  (talk) , Ironholds

The latest in the series of Royal Society medals at FLC, seems FLable. &mdash; neuro  (talk)  01:38, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I forgot to mention, I am in the WikiCup. &mdash; neuro  (talk)  20:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

*Oppose due to the almost total lack of prose. Don't drag my good FL name into the dust with you, dammit! :P. Ironholds (talk) 02:31, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 *  Weak Oppose  -- Due to the lack of prose, the formatting from a glance looks fine, but the lead lacks.--Best,  ₮ RU  C Ө   02:49, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Most of my comments are the same as pointed out by Dabomb below, except the following
 * The medal has been repeatedly awarded to multiple individuals in the same year; in 1877 it was awarded to Robert Wilhelm Bunsen and Gustav Robert Kirchhoff "for their researches & discoveries in spectrum analysis",[3] in 1882 to Dmitri Mendeleev and Julius Lothar Meyer "For their discovery of the periodic relations of the atomic weights",[3] in 1883 to Marcellin Berthelot and Julius Thomsen "For their researches in thermo-chemistry",[3] in 1893 to Jacobus Henricus van 't Hoff and Joseph Achille Le Bel "In recognition of their introduction of the theory of asymmetric carbon, and its use in explaining the constitution of optically active carbon compounds",[3] in 1903 to Pierre Curie and Marie Curie "For their researches on radium"[4] and in 1963 to John Cornforth and George Joseph Popjak "In recognition of their distinguished joint work on the elucidation of the biosynthetic pathway to polyisoprenoids and steroids". -- the semi colon should be a colon
 * The lead needs to summarize the list more, as in who was the first recipient, the most recent, and how many overall, etc.
 * It does: "*The medal was first awarded in 1877 to Robert Wilhelm Bunsen and Gustav Robert Kirchhoff "for their researches & discoveries in spectrum analysis",[1] and has since been awarded 131 times.[1] .... The medal was most recently awarded to James Fraser Stoddart "For his contributions in molecular technology".[1]" Ironholds (talk) 06:18, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, my bad. I must have not paid attention.--Best,  ₮ RU  C Ө   15:22, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The name column should not be sortable because some cells have more than one entry, and when sorted, it isn't representative of everything sorted.--Best,  ₮ RU  C Ө   00:56, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * All points addressed. Ironholds (talk) 06:18, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Why is the name column all squeezed in? The rationale column shouldn't need all that space.--Best,  ₮ RU  C Ө   15:22, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Try now?


 * Oppose Can't accept such a short lead — Chris!  c t 04:47, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Can I ask that this is put on hold whilst I get Ironholds to write a lead? He wrote all of the other ones and did a really good job, but it seems that whilst I thought that I had done all right I in fact did not. &mdash; neuro  (talk)  06:30, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Try now; prose added. Ironholds (talk) 13:48, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Support— Chris!  c t 22:40, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:05, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:46, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment Every row uses a quote, so there should be attribution for each one. -- Scorpion 0422  16:43, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Unless I'm missing something, are all attributed. &mdash; neuro  (talk) (review) 20:13, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The entries for 1995, 1997, 2001, 2003, 2007 and 2008 do not have any reference, so the quotes are unattributed. -- Scorpion 0422  23:06, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No, all the quotes are attributed by the "general" references at the bottom. The references in the notes section are there as third-party verification that X won the medal in Y year. Ironholds (talk) 00:09, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Support thanks for taking the time to go through my comments - good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:35, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Comments
 * With regard to the [f]or's etc in the prose, WP:MOS (Other matters section) says that "if an entire sentence is quoted in such a way that it becomes a grammatical part of the larger sentence, the first letter loses its capitalization". Also, the one in the opening sentence of the lead isn't even capitalised in the source, so there's absolutely no reason to parenthesise the f.
 * That was a simple error with my regex when changing the article back, fixed now. &mdash; neuro  (talk) (review) 23:18, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't make myself clear (it was late :-), although I think the example in the MOS section mentioned does. When a capitalised item is quoted such that it becomes grammatically part of the larger sentence, as those quotes beginning [f]or in the lead section are, it just loses its capital, it doesn't gain square brackets. Struway2 (talk) 16:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, done. &mdash; neuro  (talk) (review) 16:40, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Cornforth/Popjak's medal was 1968, not 1963 as you have it in the lead.
 * Fixed. &mdash; neuro  (talk) (review) 23:18, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Per MOS:QUOTE (Minimal change section), you probably ought to mark the Royal Society's typos with sic. Such as Parsons 2003 (electochemistry should be electrochemistry: see for confirmation); Bartlett 2002 (flourine → fluorine); Pauling 1947 (theor → their). There may well be more, but it's late and my eyes are failing
 * Will do. &mdash; neuro  (talk) (review) 23:18, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that's all of them, at least the obvious ones. &mdash; neuro  (talk) (review) 00:18, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Battersby 1977. Per MOS:QUOTE (Allowable changes section), the hyphen should be an endash
 * Done. &mdash; neuro  (talk) (review) 23:18, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It'd be more appropriate to use cite journal for journals rather than cite book
 * Will do. &mdash; neuro  (talk) (review) 23:18, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * and an ordinal rather a cardinal number in the edition field, so that the reference shows e.g. (2nd ed.) rather than (2 ed.)
 * Are you sure (can't find a policy on it). I mean, we use April 1, for example, not April 1st. &mdash; neuro  (talk) (review) 23:18, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the policy is that we use standard English unless we're told not to: we're told not to use April 1st. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 23:24, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. &mdash; neuro  (talk) (review) 00:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * References currently ##10 and 12 cite works by Marion Clyde Day, one dated 1884, the other 1969. That's either remarkable longevity or there's something wrong somewhere.
 * Checking issue. &mdash; neuro  (talk) (review) 23:18, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed. &mdash; neuro  (talk) (review) 00:14, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm impressed by all the books and journals you've cited. Did you access the versions made of dead trees, or online versions? Struway2 (talk) 16:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd say 4/5 is Google Books work, 1/5 is library scouring. &mdash; neuro  (talk) (review) 16:37, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Another time, it might be helpful to the reader if you were to add a url for Google Books ones; just linking to the start page for the book (the http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=xxx bit), it wouldn't be sensible to link right into the search results. Though I wouldn't expect you to go back and find them all again for this list. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 21:14, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit confused - If what I think you're saying is what you are saying, that seems nonstandard. &mdash; neuro  (talk) (review) 21:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Probably :-) There's a bit of inconsistency... Here at Citing sources/example style it says link right down to the page you're using, but here WikiProject Fact and Reference Check/Guidelines it says don't link at all (which seems pretty unhelpful to me), and here Template talk:Cite book/Archive 6 it says link the id (which is what I suggested). So heaven only knows. What I'm saying is: 1) I think it would be helpful to the reader if there was a link to Google Books if such exist; but 2) there's no obligation to do it by any guideline or policy AFAIK; and 3) there doesn't seem to be any consensus on exactly how to do it anyway. hope this helps (?), cheers, Struway2 (talk) 21:48, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * If there is no clear consensus, I'd rather stick away from it entirely, if that is alright. :) &mdash; neuro  (talk) (review) 22:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Whatever... :) cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:25, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Quite a few of the cite templates have fields with the parameter name present but no content, e.g. Cleve 1894  Another time, it might be better to just omit unused fields.
 * That was simply so that I didn't have to faff around with the fields - I will script a way to remove all unused fields in a bit. &mdash; neuro  (talk) (review) 23:18, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Scripted and executed. &mdash; neuro  (talk) (review) 23:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Not perfect yet; I still caught a few. Also, can you add ISBNs when possible? Dabomb87 (talk) 23:35, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Are the ones you caught not using cite book? Also, ISBNs were added when they were present. &mdash; neuro  (talk) (review) 23:36, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * This edit will answer your questions. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:39, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Hm, that shouldn't have occurred (except for the one in the lead, I didn't run the script on that). As far as I can tell that is it, the script isn't picking up anything, and I can't find a problem with the script. Also, your method for finding ISBNs must be superior to mine - what do you use? &mdash; neuro  (talk) (review) 23:42, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * http://books.google.com/. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:45, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That's what I use. :| &mdash; neuro  (talk) (review) 23:48, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I've taken this bit back out of the capped stuff, seeing as there are still plenty of cite templates with empty fields, and a bot has just been adding more... Struway2 (talk) 20:35, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 99% sure I just eliminated all of them (seems it didn't like the running order). I get no results searching for "= |", so that should be it. :) — neuro  (talk) (review) 00:30, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Think it must have been late for you, as well, or too early in the morning... This just removed all the |year= parameters, but left the years; have a look at the references section in your last version :-) Don't worry, (I think) I've fixed them. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:25, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Haha, crap, I fail so badly. Thanks a lot for fixing them. Don't write scripts when tired, eh? :P — neuro  (talk) (review) 09:14, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * All issues resolved, cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:36, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.