Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of female Fellows of the Royal Society/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 not promoted by NapHit 08:32, 25 December 2012.

List of female Fellows of the Royal Society

 * Nominator(s): KTC (talk) 03:52, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this newly created list for featured list because I believe it fulfils all of the featured list criteria. The entries are complete in that all female fellows and members are listed, and as far as I can tell all Royal Society prizes & awards have also been listed in the Notes & Awards column. KTC (talk) 03:52, 22 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Support This is a useful follow on from the recent WikiProject Women's History/Ada Lovelace Day 2012 edit-a-thon and similar initiatives to create and expand articles about women in science, and I'd support featuring this list. Regards, Eric:  Esowteric + Talk  09:17, 22 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose Any reason why this is split from the gender-neutral article, List of Fellows of the Royal Society? Possible gender-POV? Also table does not meet the accessiblity criteria, lead is too short, among other issues. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 09:38, 22 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I'd argue that having a separate sublist is valid - as long as we don't arbitrarily break it into a male list and a female list, having one comprehensive list plus one for definable subsets is fine. Compare, for example, the (featured) list of female Nobel laureates. The RS themselves treat the distinction as meaningful enough to provide a female-only list (although not a very helpful one, as it's current-only) Andrew Gray (talk) 10:01, 22 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Note There's also a newly augmented Category:Female Fellows of the Royal Society and female entries have been removed from Category:Fellows of the Royal Society. There are plenty of uncontested examples of categories like Women biologists; etc. Regards, Eric:  Esowteric + Talk  09:52, 22 October 2012 (UTC)


 * The category's been around some time, FWIW; created in 2008. It was only partially populated until a few weeks ago, though; my understanding is that articles should be in one only? Andrew Gray (talk) 10:01, 22 October 2012 (UTC)


 * List of Fellows of the Royal Society is a subjective list of notable fellows. The comprehensive list of all fellows are the sublists List of Fellows of the Royal Society A,B,C, D,E,F etc. Gender sublist like this one and List of female Nobel laureates are notable precisely because of the great difference in number between male and female fellows. Out of ~8,000 fellows in history, only 120 have been women. See all the recent news coverage related to the Ada Lovelace Day events, and women in science and technology in general. With regards to the accessibility criteria, can you be more specific on what you mean so I can see about possibly fixing it? The current format is based on the existing featured List of female Nobel laureates among others. Lastly, what other issues? I can't go about improving the article if I don't know what's wrong with it. Regards. KTC (talk) 13:35, 22 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Tom. TBrandley 17:49, 22 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - the lead have been expanded. KTC (talk) 20:26, 22 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Quick note I see no violation of 3b here at all. As long as this list is comprehensive (i.e. it contains all female fellows) then it's a perfectly legitimate standalone list, the objections above have no merit.  I will review in due course.  The Rambling Man (talk) 16:40, 23 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Note As well as encouraging the creation and expansion of articles about women, this is also associated with efforts to bring in women editors and engage them in Wikipedia. So the subject is very 'current'. Regards, Eric:  Esowteric + Talk  17:03, 23 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment I believe that the list being gender-specific does not violate the criteria, 3b in particular, as it does not violate any of the four points. The only issue would be if we saw that it could clearly be deleted at an AfD. As the matter of female membership in the society has been the subject of significant coverage, that is highly unlikely. Arsenikk (talk)  22:30, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Support, agree with assessment in the above comment by . This list is incredibly well sourced, it's surely very encyclopedic and educational, and has high value for readers, students, and academics alike. Great job! &mdash; Cirt (talk) 06:17, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I would be seriously tempted to merge all the tables into one, and add the extra info where required in the notes column.
 * Personally, I think separate tables in this case convey the information better, but if other interested editors were to argue for one big table, then I wouldn't put up a fight. KTC (talk) 13:52, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  21:12, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Comments. I really like this list; it's an atypical subject matter for FLC and it goes some way towards addressing issues with unbalanced coverage of female subjects. It would make a nice TFL for the closest Monday to Ada Lovelace Day next year.
 * Is there a reason you're forcing the table width at 95%?
 * Other than because I copied the format from an existing list? No. I think for one of the table at least, 95% looks better, but I've forced all of them to 100% now. KTC (talk) 13:52, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Someone will surely correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't table captions redundant when the table is directly under a section heading?
 * I agree with TRM on the "year" col
 * Done. KTC (talk) 12:47, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * An the "fields" col
 * Done. KTC (talk) 12:47, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The notes would be better as sentences or at least sentence fragments (eg awarded the Davy Medal in 1957)
 * Done. KTC (talk) 13:07, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd really like a brief bit of prose that explains why being an FRS is so highly coveted and what role the fellows play within the society, and how that differs (if it does) for foreign/royal/honorary fellows
 * What proportion of all FRSs are female?
 * I'm afraid I can't find any citable information on that. The closest I've come is List of Fellows of the Royal Society where it state there have be approximately 8,000 Fellows in history. KTC (talk) 13:52, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Do we know why they amended the rules to explicitly allow female fellows? Or why they decided to admit female FRSs at all (was it because they were legally obliged to or did they decide they wanted to)?
 * First question, no. Second question, they were legally obliged to due to the Sex Disqualification (Removal) Act 1919. I have expanded a little to make it clear (I hope). KTC (talk) 13:05, 13 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Revisiting this. I'm happy with all the responses to my comments so far. It would be unreasonable to oppose over the non-inclusion of information that's simply not available. The one thing that doesn't seem to have been addressed (Katie, please correct me if I've missed it) is my request for a sentence or two on the prestige of being an FRS. If that could be added, I'll gladly support (but I won't oppose, and may support anyway, if it isn't added) . HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  16:02, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Added. Also added a sentence detailing percentage of women Fellows out of all living Fellows. -- KTC (talk) 03:59, 14 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Support. I'm happy that all my comments have been addressed and I see no significant issues that would bar promotion to FL. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  12:43, 15 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Note - While I'm working on the above points, I just want to highlight that this is the intended appearance of the tables with rowspan on years with multiple Fellows elected. The current explosion of all rows are due to 41886. KTC (talk) 15:00, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Make that 41889. KTC (talk) 13:54, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Leaning oppose until at least the red-linked entries get a blurb in the notes section. It is not clear to me why don't all entries have a small sentence about the fellow's achievements. Nergaal (talk) 17:10, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The Fellows and Foreign Members were all elected on the basis of excellence in their respective fields, which is already one of the columns. Further blurb is, in my opinion, unlikely to add much that wouldn't be better served with a reader clicking through to the individual articles if they want more information. As to the red links, they shouldn't be treated differently to the blue ones so it should be either or for all of them. While I definitely intends to create all the missing articles if other don't beat me to it, I'm not incline to write a bunch of stubs just so this list doesn't have any red links. -- KTC (talk) 23:30, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note that a few redlinks is not a valid criterion for opposition at FLC. Therefore this opposition can and should be legitimately disregarded.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:01, 2 December 2012 (UTC)


 *  Comment . An interesting list, well presented. Much debate has surrounded the issue of the low numbers of women who have been elected FRS, and I see no reason why this should not be a separate list. As others have pointed out, the complete list of fellows would be extremely unwieldy. My only comment is that the royal fellows/patrons do not have references, and the living ones do not seem to appear in the external list of "Living female Fellows and Foreign Members of the Royal Society". Espresso Addict (talk) 12:23, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The Royal Fellows and Patrons doesn't have inline references mainly because they're not elected the usual way, so there's no election citation and any material talking about them will generally covers other aspect of their life rather than the fact they were Royal Fellows of the Royal Society. All four are covered in the general reference "List of Fellows of the Royal Society 1660–2007" (pp. 12, 110 & 365). Which of the living ones did you test? That particular list covers those elected up to and including 2011, so anyone that were elected this year wouldn't be on there. -- KTC (talk) 13:24, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The list I checked (for royal fellows/patrons), as I wrote, is the one you link to as "Living female Fellows and Foreign Members of the Royal Society" . If they are covered under "List of Fellows of the Royal Society 1660–2007", then I suggest that you place citations to specific page numbers in a reference column for ease of reference, and also clarify for each whether they are royal fellows and/or patrons, which appears unclear in 3 of the 4 cases. Espresso Addict (talk) 13:46, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Done re. references. Re. Royal Fellows vs. Patrons, I thought it was fairly clear that only Queen Vic & QE2 were patrons and hence Queen Mum & Anne has only ever been Royal Fellows, but obviously not. I have added a few sentences before the table that should hopefully help explain things? -- KTC (talk) 00:43, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I fear you might now need a reference for the introductory text in this section. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:20, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Section rewrote with added references. KTC (talk) 18:03, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I've done some copy edits, but the last sentence of this section is rather jumbled; suggest simplifying. Otherwise happy to support. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:22, 14 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I have made some minor tweaks as follows: (1) prizes are awarded to someone, lectures are delivered/presented by someone, so I've changed the formula to "Delivered the X Lecture in YYYY". I know that it might be prestigious to be asked to deliver the X lecture, but that's implicit. (2) Notes that are not full sentences should not end with a "." I have explained above in my now-hatted comments why this is not a 3(b) violation. I am also not worried that some of the lectures don't have articles yet, although it would be good if they did or if they could be redirected to a mention of them in another Royal Society article. However, I'd like this bit tidied up:
 * Throughout its history, the Royal Society has elected a number of individuals to its Fellowship by virtue of their royal blood or marriage. By the time women were admitted to its Fellowships, eligibility of such elections has been limited to members of the British Royal Family. The reigning monarch of England, and since the Act of Union 1707, that of Great Britain has always served as patron of the Society.
 * "eligibility of such elections" doesn't make sense to me
 * Great Britain became the United Kingdom in 1801
 * Source for these three sentences?

Fix these and I'll be supporting. BencherliteTalk 13:32, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Rewrote that bit with added references. -- KTC (talk) 18:03, 14 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose. If the gender, race, religion, disability, or nationality of the fellow is felt to be of interest to readers, can this not be achieved through adding an additional field to the main list? I question the value of this list as a standalone list, so would not be comfortable in supporting as a featured list. Perhaps merge back into the main list?  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  15:05, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I think merging it back would be political. This is a complete list of female members; being a female member is a notable occurrence in its own right due to the very late acceptance of members, and the currently low number of fellows. I hope that in 20 years such a list would be so long as to make it useless, but until then I feel it holds notability. It seems a shame to put such pointless criticism onto such a lot of determined effort. I do have a suggestion though; get the male fellows in the other list up to featured status (indeed, it probably needs expansion) and then a merge would certainly be worth considering. --Errant (chat!) 16:28, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * A complete list of List of male Fellows would have around 8,000 entries... KTC (talk) 16:34, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry SilkTork, but with sadness on my part, your logic, following many of our other lists, is deeply flawed. As KTC notes, the main list would have 8,000+ entries, so creating sublists seems perfectly acceptable to me.  We often split per gender (e.g. South Africa women Test cricketers) or by religion (e.g. List of Jewish Medal of Honor recipients) etc.  I'm not keen on this oppose being mixed in with the ongoing WP:RFA nonsense.  I would hope we could take these perceived editorial problems separately from any kind of administrative issues.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:33, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose I don't mind red links at all. But I do think a small blurb would help, for all of them. Clicking to the article is ok, but some info should be on the list as well. Garion96 (talk) 21:19, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * This is a fair point, that all entries perhaps should have some explanatory notes, to make this list standalone from the rest of Wikipedia, regardless of whether the subject is redlinked or not. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:23, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I just checked some other related featured lists and they all seem to have some more info. See List of Honorary Fellows of Jesus College, Oxford and List of Wilfrid Laurier University people. That makes them, to me, better lists. Garion96 (talk) 21:30, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agreed with your original comment. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:33, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * That last comment was not really meant for you :) Just for nominator so she can see some examples. Garion96 (talk) 21:39, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Cool, indentation can sometimes confuse me... :) The Rambling Man (talk) 21:42, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.