Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Michael Faraday Prize/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 Matthewedwards 07:12, 11 April 2009.

Michael Faraday Prize

 * Nominator(s): &mdash; neuro  (talk) (review) 

Another Royal Society related FLC, seems FLable. I checked with the Royal Society about the years with no rationale, they told me that it is indeed correct that some have no rationales (the sources agree, but I just wanted to be sure). To present a conflict of interest where none exists, I am required at this point to say that I am a participant in this year's WikiCup. &mdash; neuro  (talk) (review) 00:51, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment - Is it possible to expand the lead a bit more?— Chris!  c t 01:03, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you give examples of things to include? We've covered everything normally covered; the reason that it is shorter than normal is that there are no massive quotes in the lead (which is precisely the thing which makes this Royal Society award so different from the others). Ironholds (talk) 01:33, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, just asking— Chris!  c t 01:41, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Review by 
 * General
 * Fix the disambiguation link found with the link checker tool in the toolbox at the right.
 * Lead
 * Can the image be decreased in size? It leaves daunting space between the lead and the next section, or possibly squeezing in a TOC?
 * A TOC for two sections would be fairly superfluous... –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  01:48, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * This has occurred four times to date - in 2004 to Martin Rees, in 2006 to Richard Fortey, in 2007 to Jim Al-Khalili, and most recently in 2008 to John D. Barrow. -- the dash should be a em dash, without spaces
 * Fixed. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  01:48, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Tables and references check out up to speed.--Best,  ₮ RU  C Ө   23:38, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Support -- Previous issues have been resolved to meet WP:WIAFL standards.--Best,  ₮ RU  C Ө   15:35, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Support - Despite the relatively brief lead, it meets the criteria. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  01:51, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Support remains, in spite of the new FL criteria. – Juliancolton  | Talk 16:12, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:19, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:19, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Publications (newspapers, magazines and journals) should be italicized. You can do this by changing  to   in the citation templates. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:04, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. &mdash; neuro  (talk) (review) 16:49, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak support. I think we may have an issue with lists that have verbatim notes/criteria/whatever which include with abbreviations and techspeak and are perhaps unapproachable to a regular reader.  However, the list meets the new criteria so hurrah.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:41, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Despite the new FL criteria, this list is still up to those standards. My Support for promotion stands.-- T ru  c o   14:57, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Support, even with new FL criteria. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:19, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment date and accessdates in the references should be in the same date format throughout. Matthewedwards : Chat  02:29, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for fixing that, sorry for not doing it myself, I've not been around much. :) — neuro  (talk) (review) 08:12, 11 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.