Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Nobel Laureates


 * 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 User:Matthewedwards 00:52, 14 December 2008 (UTC).

List of Nobel Laureates
Nominating with User:Scorpion0422. Main article of our Nobel Laureates FT. — sephiroth bcr  ( converse ) 23:59, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comments I would like the table to be sortable. Also, in instances where more than one person won a prize, there is no distinguishing between the two names within the box. There are just a few words all in blue; maybe a semicolon to separate conjoined names? Beyond that it is an excellent list and I support. Reywas92 Talk  04:12, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. — sephiroth bcr  ( converse ) 08:41, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Great! Support Reywas92 Talk  03:55, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Comments I see a bunch of "None" in the table but no explanation. Are there any reasons for those omissions? (For example, I know there were no Nobel prizes in the 1940s due to World War, but I think the article should still explain that in case some people don't know.)— Chris!  c t 06:54, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Sometimes the Nobel Foundation believes that no one deserves the Nobel Prize that year. There's often no rhyme or reason. I don't think notes are necessary. — sephiroth bcr  ( converse ) 08:41, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe not specific notes for each omissions. What about a general disclaimer on top of the list that explains those omissions, that "sometimes the Nobel Foundation believes that no one deserves the Nobel Prize that year." I just think it is better to have some sort of explanations.— Chris!  c t 19:05, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Added a few sentences to the lead. — sephiroth bcr  ( converse ) 02:37, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Support I guess that is good enough— Chris!  c t 02:57, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Support Looks good, and meets all criteria. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:28, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Comments
 * Sources looks good, checked with the Checklinks tool. Canniba  loki  03:33, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Support - meets WP:WIAFL.--SRX 00:06, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Support - everything looks good. I have my TV on and they're actually giving out the awards right now. ;) -- The Le ft orium  15:27, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comments
 * Not keen on linking the word "anniversary" which is pretty unambiguous when you don't link "will" which, in reading that sentence, could be ambiguous.
 * Fixed.
 * "a cash prize " sounds a bit gameshow. Would "monetary award" or something similar not sound more serious?
 * Agreed, fixed.
 * The equivalence to 2007 money should be cited really (unless I've missed it) otherwise it could be deemed WP:OR.
 * "...due to the situation Vietnam was in at the time..." I think this is poorly worded - I'm not sure what this means, and a non-expert would be dumbfounded...
 * Agreed, and I expanded it.
 * "...between 1940 and 1942 due to the outbreak ..." - the outbreak didn't last three years...
 * True. Removed.
 * The lead says the award is given "...to individuals who ..." but in the table I see organisations such as the International Committee of the Red Cross. This needs rewording.
 * Well, organizations are only eligible in the peace category, but I have added it.
 * Not keen on the ISO formatted dates in the references. What's wrong with just 27 November 2008 or November 27 2008 or whatever format you choose?  The only rule you need to apply is to be consistent within the article...
 * Nobel Prize is a supercat of Nobel laureates, so you only need Nobel laureates as a category.
 * Removed.
 * Be consistent with linking Nobel Foundation. You do it only once in the general references, but every time in the specific references.  Is that as you intended?
 * Fixed.
 * The Rambling Man on tour (talk) 06:13, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow, it's The Rambling Man! Thanks for taking a look. -- Scorpion 0422  15:03, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.