Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Hughes 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 Scorpion0422 00:45, 18 February 2009.

Hughes Medal

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

A Royal Society medal - worked on by myself and Ironholds, seems FLable. &mdash; neuro  (talk)  16:35, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Note One of the nominators, Neurolysis, is a WikiCup participant. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:26, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I asked Garden if I should note that (I listed this before it was mentioned, and he said it didn't matter, in case you are wondering why I didn't do it myself). I don't know FLC etiquette so well, so I just figured it was best to leave it alone once it was announced that it should be mentioned in the opening statement.. &mdash; neuro  (talk)  17:58, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Scorpion said something about it here and here. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:21, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh right, didn't see those. Fair enough then. :) &mdash; neuro  (talk)  12:59, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Support, all my issues above have been resolved. Rambo's Revenge (talk)  19:29, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments from 
 * The most recent winner was Michele Dougherty, who was awarded the medal "for innovative use of magnetic field data that led to discovery of an atmosphere around one of Saturn's moons and the way it revolutionised our view of the role of planetary moons in the Solar System". - winner should be "recipient"
 * Done &mdash; neuro  (talk)  23:48, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Why was it named after Hughes?
 * Doing &mdash; neuro  (talk)  23:48, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I assume 'because he died and was popular'. Normally it is either 'X gave us masses of money, so we made a medal for him' or 'X died and we liked him, so we made a medal for him'. Ironholds (talk) 05:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Can that be verified by a source, though?-- TRU  CO   01:10, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Is this going to be added with a source or is it going to be left out?-- TRU  CO   15:11, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Left out; it was more a glib remark than a serious statement. We can verify it is named after him, but we cannot unfortunately verify why. Ironholds (talk) 15:13, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay.-- TRU  CO   16:02, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Where there any other significant recipients that should be noted in the lead?
 * Doing &mdash; neuro  (talk)  23:48, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The not awarded entry should sort towards the bottom of the list IMO.
 * Done &mdash; neuro  (talk)  23:45, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Since JSTOR is not elaborated in the article, its acronym should be spelled out in the references.
 * Done &mdash; neuro  (talk)  23:48, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Ref 20 has JSTOR linked, but it should be linked in its first occurrence of ref #5
 * Done &mdash; neuro  (talk)  00:11, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I am also skeptical about Notable Names Database, can you prove its fact checking system?-- TRU  CO   22:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Doing, removing all NNDBs and replacing with other refs - about half way done. &mdash; neuro  (talk)  23:49, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, going to bed now, don't know if Ironholds will come on later tonight and add some more, if not, they'll all be done by the end of tomorrow. &mdash; neuro  (talk)  00:11, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Until then, I will support.-- TRU  CO   01:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Still pending on the sourcing issue. TRU  CO   01:10, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Sourcing issue close to being resolved, doing the last eight now. &mdash; neuro  (talk)  01:36, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Done &mdash; neuro  (talk)  01:59, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Support - problems fixed to meet WP:WIAFL. TRU  CO   16:02, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:50, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:50, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Publications such as The New York Times (by the way, "The" is part of the title and should be part of the work), the Chicago Tribune and The Telegraph should be in italics. This can be done by changing "publisher" to "work" in the citation template. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:43, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * All done. Ironholds (talk) 01:53, 8 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.