Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Richard Dawkins Award/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 PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 27 May 2022 (UTC).

Richard Dawkins Award

 * Nominator(s): Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 20:24, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Rewrote this list recently, and feel that it meets the FL criteria. If promoted, this might be the first Category:FL-Class Atheism articles. Over to the community for their constructive feedback. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 20:24, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

 * Oppose . This article just lists the recipients with no information about what they have done which the Center for Enquiry regards as deserving the award. It falls far short of the requirement for comprehensiveness. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:35, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi @Dudley Miles, thanks for your review. I have worked at FL awards like Darwin Medal and Gabor Medal. The standard practice is that we include, in direct quotation, the "citation" or the rationale for the award, which the presenting organisation provides. In this case, I have checked at the official websites of both the former and current presenting organization (Atheist Alliance of America and Center for Inquiry) and the Dawkins Foundation. None has any citation/rationale. To add to the above issue, we even don't have a fixed reason as so why is this award awarded. Atheist Alliance of America says it is awarded to "honor an outstanding atheist whose contributions raise public awareness of the nontheist life stance; who, through writings, media, the arts, film, and/or the stage, advocates increased scientific knowledge; who, through work or by example, teaches acceptance of the nontheist philosophy". Center for Inquiry says it is awarded to a "distinguished individual from the worlds of science, scholarship, education or entertainment, who publicly proclaims the values of secularism and rationalism, upholding scientific truth wherever it may lead". It simply changes from limited criteria of "outstanding atheist" to broad criteria of "distinguished individual". From "nontheist philosophy" to "values of secularism and rationalism". In other words, for me to write information about what they have done which the Center for Enquiry regards as deserving the award when the Center for Inquiry has no information on that would definitely be Original research, and this is the reason it only has name and portrait. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 04:27, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Adding to that, I see that the comprehensiveness FL criteria (WP:FL) requires having a defined scope and "providing at least all of the major items and, where practical, a complete set of items". Here we do have a complete set of all winners. "where appropriate, it has annotations that provide useful and appropriate information about the items": Here, we do have mentioned everything that is relevant and what WP:RS report. Because I think this does meet the requirement for comprehensiveness. We have had recent featured lists (1, 2, etc.) which just mention that name/title and image, because that is all what is relevant. Do you have any sources which are not present in the article and have the information you are requesting for? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:27, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Comments moved from below
 * Outgrowing God: A Beginner's Guide is more relevant than The Selfish Gene
 * Done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:17, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * "The most recent individual to be awarded is Tim Minchin in 2021." This is recentism as it will soon be out of date. You can just say "In 2021..."
 * Done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:17, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * "She had an early interest in science stemmed from a fascination with Karl Marx" I think is more relevant. It clarifies that she is an agnostic, not an atheist.
 * Done. Although I was a bit hesitant on using WP:SALON.COM as it has no consensus on its reliability. Upon further thinking, I'd say this is usually decided on case-by-case basis. Here, we directly quote Druyan's, and specify her self stated agnostic views. So, I'd say no issues with using it. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:17, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * "Dennett was a professor". I would take "was" to mean he has died. If he has retired then "is an emeritus professor" would be correct.
 * Changes to "he served as a professor", that would be better, I think. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:17, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * This looks much better now - just a few queries. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:50, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * @Dudley Miles: Thanks for the comments; done most of it. How does it look now? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:19, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. Looks fine now. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:49, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot! Just for the record, I un-boldfaced and striked your initial oppose in this edit, merely to avoid any confusion by anyone reading this FLC. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:52, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Wretchskull

 * Comment: I unfortunately have to concur with the above, . Have you checked everywhere to make sure there isn't any info on the rationales (browser search, google scholar, google books, internet archive, TWL, profile websites of each recipient's institutions, etc.)? If so, comprehensiveness is probably met. Wretchskull (talk) 22:10, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * @Wretchskull: Mostly yes, and yes, they have no official rationale or citation. See my response above. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 04:28, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * There is information about at least some of the awards. On a quick search I have found Tim Minchin] and Lawrence Krauss. I do not think your other examples are comparable. The Gallup poll by its nature does not give reasons and the birds of Nauru has links to relevant further information. This article does not provide links to information specifically relevant to the award. It would be helpful to give a summary where it is available, even if you have to mark some recipients as 'information not available'. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:41, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Have you perhaps considered adding small quotes of Dawkins' speech of each recipient from the YouTube video attached to each source? For example, here? Not sure if this would fly under FLC. Wretchskull (talk) 08:52, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * are Youtube videos allowed as references? Dudley Miles (talk) 10:37, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * @Dudley Miles: See WP:RSPYT. Also, I don't think adding parts of Dawkins speech would be helpful. How about if I add 2-3 lines on every recipient of the award, detailing their contributions to, well, secularism and rationalism? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:44, 6 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi @Dudley Miles and @Wretchskull: How does the list look now? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:30, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Excellent work! Support. Wretchskull (talk) 12:32, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

FrB.TG
Support on all criteria except 3a. I haven't heard of this award before so I cannot judge its comprehensiveness. Other than that, I find the list to be well-written, well-sourced and in compliance with other FL criteria. Just one minor suggestion below.
 * "The Richard Dawkins Award is named in honor of evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins." Perhaps we could avoid repeating Richard Dawkins by rephrasing to something like: "The Richard Dawkins Award is named in honor of the eponymous evolutionary biologist." FrB.TG (talk) 14:42, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Done. Thanks a lot! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 14:59, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Oppose from TRM
That's it for content for me at the moment. I'm a little disappointed to find so many fundamental issues in a list which appears to already have sufficient support to promote. Maybe standards aren't quite what they used to be. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:21, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * "the Center for Inquiry. It was" what is that? Some context would be useful here, i.e. what they are, where they're based etc.
 * Done.
 * "awarded by the Atheist Alliance of America coordinating" according to our article it was called "Atheist Alliance International" at that time.
 * The source refers it as "Atheist Alliance of America", and our article on the same is a redirect to "Atheist Alliance International"
 * You link nontheism but not atheism?
 * Fixed.
 * I would avoid the "according to" for the organisation's own reason for giving the award, maybe stick with "The award is presented for ..." and just reference it to the organisation.
 * Fixed.
 * "by Dawkins." maybe "by Dawkins himself." to ensure no confusion over him individually and his organisation.
 * Done, but I was reluctant as I don't think 'Dawkins' could be confused with his organisation.
 * "by the Prospect magazine" reads odd to me, no need for "the".
 * Done; I believed having a definite article is not an issue as long as it is consistent within the article.
 * Oh you do link atheism, just not first time.
 * Fixed.
 * "and wrote books like" -> "has written books including".
 * Done.
 * Probably also worth noting up front that Dawkins is British as this article's ENGVAR is USEng (for the awarding organization I assume).
 * Done.
 * Why did you pick one of his bibliography that isn't considered notable enough for an article on Wikipedia??
 * Well, it is notable book, we just don't have an article. Redlinked.
 * "received by James Randi.[7] In" who is Randi? Where is he from? What did he do?
 * All that is in the table. Added a line here as well.
 * "jointly as Penn & Teller received" comma after Teller, and suggest you note them as "television magicians" or something.
 * Done.
 * "due to Maher's views on vaccines" no need to repeat Maher, and what were his views, it's unclear here.
 * Done.
 * "David Gorski referred" why does his opinion count here?
 * Specified (maybe)
 * "became the first Indian" were all recipients to that point American then?
 * Here is the case: Almost no WP:RS report that "XYZ was first American/British/Canadian/etc" to receive the award. But, there are a whole bunch of sources (,, , , , , , , , etc., etc.) referring that particular person as the "first Indian" to receive the award. I have just summarized what many of WP:RS report.
 * "awards have been awarded" awful repetition.
 * Sorry, fixed.
 * "was an magician" -> "a magician".
 * Fixed (I honestly don't know what I was thinking then!)
 * Why is "mind reading" not hyphenated while "fortune-telling" is?
 * Done.
 * "he was a recipient of the MacArthur award.[13]" what was that for?
 * The source does not mention that.
 * Odd you have a ref column but most of the refs are in the notes column.
 * That is because the "Ref." column has references supporting that the individual has received the award in that particular year. The "Notes" column has biography and views of the individual. Almost none of the sources in the "Notes" column mention the Dawkins award.
 * "early interest in science stemmed from a fascination" grammar and tone issues.
 * Removed.
 * "are Emmy Award winning magician-duo" really odd grammar here, maybe "are an Emmy Award-winning magician duo".
 * Done.
 * "famous for her work" famous? Notable perhaps?
 * Done.
 * " the Tufts University" I don't think anyone ever refers to it as "the Tufts University"...
 * Removed 'the'. But strange, because the University itself refers as "the Tufts University".
 * "converted to an atheism" nope, no need for "an".
 * Removed.
 * "critic of Quran" of the Quran.
 * Done.
 * Jacoby's notes have literally no explanation as to why she might have been suitable for the award.
 * Added that she is an atheist.
 * "who famously wrote the book" tone issues.
 * Done.
 * "which Susan Sontag called" who is she?
 * Specified.
 * "at the Harvard University; he has" not "the" Harvard...
 * Okay.
 * " an author holding Ph.D. in philosophy" again, weird grammar, I would say "an author with a Ph.D. in philosophy".
 * Done.
 * "book 36 Arguments for the Existence of God" this is interesting, so she argued in favour of God?
 * Not entirely; specified.
 * "supporter of Evolution, and" no need for capital E.
 * Done.
 * "quality, ... and" delete the comma and ensure the ellipsis meets the requirements of MOS:ELLIPSIS.
 * Done.
 * "referred by Melissa Pugh as" who is this non-notable person and why do we care what she thinks?
 * Because she was the president of Atheist Alliance of America; specified.
 * "an American has served " grammar.
 * "Fry is an comedian" British.
 * Done.
 * Perhaps (since you made a big deal out of the "first Indian" recipient) nationalities should be included as a new column here.
 * I don't think that would be helpful for the reader. And I have explained my reasoning for "first Indian" above.
 * "who received the Richard Dawkins Award because of" I don't think you need to use the full formal title here, just "the award" probably as that's what this entire article is about.
 * Sure.
 * "Gervais is an comedian" not "an" and add British in here again.
 * Sure.
 * "Indian to receive the Richard Dawkins Award" so why not the first Briton? Or the first "American-Canadian"? And again, no need to repeat the full name of the award.
 * Reasoning specified above.
 * "comedian, who received the Richard Dawkins Award for "inspiring" same again re: award.
 * Done.
 * @The Rambling Man: Thanks a lot for your review. I think I have replied to your every comment. Please let me know if there is anything else that needs attention. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 06:45, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * @The Rambling Man: Hi! Can you please take another look? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:56, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * @The Rambling Man: Hi! Apologies for pressing you, but is there anything else required? Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:21, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Certainly much improved. If I have time to re-review in detail I will, but happy to strike the oppose and go with whatever my colleagues decide upon review for promotion. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:06, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Comments by Pseud 14
General non-expert review. I have very few comments as it seems the major ones have been addressed above. So apologies if it comes across as nitpick-y.
 * In 2005, Penn Jillette and Teller, jointly as Penn & Teller, received the award.[10][11] In 2009, Bill Maher received the award; due to his views on vaccines and his criticism of evidence-based medicine, oncologist David Gorski referred to him receiving the award as "inappropriate".[12] In 2020, Javed Akhtar became the first Indian to receive the award.[13] -- I would avoid this so the prose does not come across as listing dates, as the year is already in the table itself. Since the inclusion of some recipients in the lead is because it is notable, perhaps you can mention that Penn & Teller was jointly awarded, or were the first co-winners.
 * Well, the recipients are also in the table. I feel that since we have few notable people in the lead, mentioning the year is not a big issue. It would rather feel incomplete without years. Thoughts? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:53, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Fair point. Perhaps just switch it up a bit, so that every sentence doesn't begin with the year. E.g. [recipient] received the award for his work/contribution on ... in 2009. Something along those lines, to make the flow better. Otherwise, doesn't hinder my support for this work.


 * In 2021, Tim Minchin received the award -- perhaps it's worth mentioning that he is the current recipient of the award, similar to other FLs like Academy Award for Best Actress, Academy Award for Best Actor.
 * Done.
 * Since 2003, 19 awards have been received by 20 people. -- I think it would read much better with "Since its inception, the award has been given to 20 individuals.", as you've already mentioned at the onset of the lead that the award was established in 2003.
 * Done.
 * In the table, the abbreviation should be "Ref(s)" since you are using "Reference(s)" as the full form.
 * Done.
 * That's all I have. A very interesting read! --Pseud 14 (talk) 20:29, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * @Pseud 14: Thanks for the review! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:54, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Just a very minor (nitpick-y) suggestion on the first point. Otherwise, I'm happy to provide my support. Good job. By the way, if you have some spare time or inclination, would appreciate feedback on my FLC. Pseud 14 (talk) 15:21, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

@: I am not sure how this nomination would proceed. TRM gave a comprehensive feedback, for which I am much obliged. I pinged him thrice over a span of 20 days, and do not wish to ping him again (he probably is busy in real life). It has been a month since I responded to the comments. What would you advice? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:38, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Query
 * When this nomination is evaluated (probably in the next wave of promotions, unless Giants gets to it first) I'll evaluate if the review was addressed to my satisfaction and if I have any additional concerns. It's not unknown to have addressed opposes where the opposer never returns, so don't worry about it. -- Pres N  16:13, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:20, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Comments from Maile66
Re the "scope row", wouldn't it make more sense to have that next to the names column? The years are already in chron order and sortable. — Maile (talk) 15:45, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * @: Perhaps yes; done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:52, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - — Maile (talk) 18:49, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Source review passed; promoting. -- Pres N  22:50, 26 May 2022 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.