Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Rumford 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 Matthewedwards 21:15, 10 February 2009.

Rumford Medal

 * Nominator(s): Ironholds (talk)

Another of my Royal Society lists. To anticipate a query about the use of numbers (3) rather than words (three) in the nationality section of the lead; the biggest numbers are large enough that using words isn't appropriate, and I didn't want to apply two different standards to the same area of the list. Ironholds (talk) 21:34, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:17, 27 January 2009 (UTC) Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:17, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * All fixed. Ironholds (talk) 06:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Spell out abbreviations such as IOP, NNB and NNDB.
 * Italicize publications such as The Daily Telegraph . Dabomb87 (talk) 13:29, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. Ironholds (talk) 16:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

 Oppose/ Comments from 
 * For one the article needs to be broken into sections (the list itself)
 * Can you explain why? Ironholds (talk) 22:39, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Because of WP:SECTION, the table should be in a section called "Recipients" or something like that.-- TRU    CO   00:09, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh right; I thought I had that, it must have got lost in the moves from article to sandbox and sandbox to article; my apologies. Ironholds (talk) 00:17, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The Rumford Medal is awarded by the Royal Society every alternating year for 'an outstandingly important recent discovery in the field of thermal or optical properties of matter made by a scientist working in Europe'. - the marks you're using should be quotation marks "", in addition the period should be inside the quotes
 * First awarded in 1800 it was created after a 1796 donation of $5000 by the scientist Benjamin Thompson, known as Count Rumford, and is accompanied by a £1000 gift. - 1)Comma after 1800 2)Since this is an international list, the currencies should be linked 3)The last part about the gift should be a new sentence because it doesn't tie in with the rest of the first part of the statement
 * Since its creation the medal has been awarded to 100 individuals, including Rumford himself in 1800.  - comma after creation
 * The medal has been awarded to citizens of the United Kingdom 53 times, Germany 17 times, France 14 times, the Netherlands 7 times, the United States 3 times, Italy twice and once each to citizens of Australia, Hungary, Luxembourg and New Zealand.  - 1)Well regarding your comment above, the numbers below nine should be spelled out if its going to be like this 2)Unlink the countries, they are too common
 * On the first point, Ironholds specifically said that he wrote them out that way to make the comparable quantities the same (per WP:MOSNUM). Dabomb87 (talk) 22:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I get that, but per MOSNUM, if its gonna be like this, number 0-9 should be spelled out because they are relatively smaller.-- TRU    CO   22:14, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. Ironholds (talk) 22:39, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The most recent winner was Edward Hinds in 2008, a physicist from the United Kingdom who was awarded the medal 'for his extensive and highly innovative work in ultra-cold matter'. - quotation marks should be used
 * Done. Ironholds (talk) 22:39, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The lead needs to be substantially expanded to summarize the list more and more about the history of the medal and how it is regarded, and a summary of what professions the medal was awarded to.
 * Dividing it by profession wouldn't work; they're all 'scientists' of some sort of another. There isn't much of a 'history'; unlike the Royal Medal which has gone through various stages, this one has stayed stable. Ironholds (talk) 22:39, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Gotcha.-- TRU    CO   23:23, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The quotation marks need to be added instead of ' marks.
 * Done. Ironholds (talk) 22:39, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You need to fix this on another couple of your FLs also. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:41, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't Ångström still sort with A?
 * Take that up with the mediawiki people, not me. Ironholds (talk) 22:39, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Why? You can fix it, use the sort template.-- TRU    CO   23:23, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I can? How, exactly :S. Ironholds (talk) 23:28, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Like that :) Rambo's Revenge (talk)  23:49, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! This is your domain, as it were :P. Ironholds (talk) 23:51, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Unlink the countries in the table, maybe the use of flag would be better.
 * Will unlink now. Ironholds (talk) 23:51, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The image caption needs a full stop
 * No it shouldn't, that is not a complete sentence. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:10, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe for the purpose of sorting, the entries where no award was given, the colspan should be avoided and columns for the No award should have emdashes instead, because the nationality doesn't sort properly like this.
 * Done. Ironholds (talk) 22:39, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * There should be at least one third-part source, not just one primary source.
 * Good luck finding it? Ironholds (talk) 22:39, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I meant third party source.-- TRU    CO   23:23, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh I know, I just meant they are rather thin on the ground. The discussion above with Dabomb has set out a way to get them. The citations for individuals; would you like me to create a 'notes' column to stick em in? Ironholds (talk) 23:28, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * What the new refs?-- TRU    CO   00:09, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed; I was thinking I could find news posts and whatnot to stick in and verify that person X won the award. Now that I think about it I am unlikely to be able to find most of those on the net; would it instead be alright if I linked them to the main text of the article as additional verification that the medal is awarded for X, worth Y, sponsored by Z, so on? Ironholds (talk) 00:16, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You don't necessarily have to find it for all of them, just some, at least to have diversity, and the ones that you can't find will be fine sourced with the general reference.-- TRU    CO   00:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * In addition, those references may work better as general references instead of specific ones to source the table. TRU    CO   22:06, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Mm, I'm now thinking my second idea was better, if that is alright with you. Ironholds (talk) 01:06, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * What needs to be done is make the original sources from the primary sources into general references like they are in this FL reference section. Then in the new notes column, add emdashes (the longer dash) to all entries that don't have a specific ref. In addition, the notes should not be sortable.-- TRU    CO   22:51, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Mhm, I meant to do those but got slightly distracted, I'll be on it in 20 mins. Ironholds (talk) 02:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. Is there anything left for me to do? All the different lines and indents has me confused as to what is left. Ironholds (talk) 05:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You have to add the dashes to all blank entries in the notes column.-- TRU    CO   19:33, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. Is it support/close off comments time yet? :P. Ironholds (talk) 03:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I love this process; every time I get told something different :P. Last time I was told 'you must have them in the column for the rationale, general sourcing just isn't good enough!' Ironholds (talk) 22:39, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well first let me ask you, is the entire list sourced by those 4-5 references?-- TRU    CO   23:23, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed; it wasn't a criticism of you but rather of the system. Ironholds (talk) 23:28, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Followup:Add emdashes to the remaining blank columns in the notes.-- TRU    CO   03:38, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Support - someone was eager for this support :P (All problems fixed to meet WP:WIAFL. TRU    CO   04:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well I just find that if the contents of each section aren't capped when they are dealt with I get confused. My first FL had about 2 pages of that stuff, and by the end I was so confused over what had/had not been done it failed like a bitch. Ironholds (talk) 04:08, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Support. All my issues (and minor nitpickings) have been resolved. Rambo's Revenge (talk)  09:27, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment. This is the main article for this award, not a "List of winners", yes? I am suprised that there is so little to write about a 100+ year old award. I really think the introduction should be longer and give more information, or this should be retittled to "List of...", so that a future article on the award in general can be written.Yobmod (talk) 09:15, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * There really isn't any more information available, either from the royal society or elsewhere. It isn't like the Nobel or the Turner; while a highly respected set of awards it is an "internal" set; the only coverage comes from news reports of the organisations who employ the winners, and even then it is normally parotting the Royal Society website. Ironholds (talk) 10:15, 10 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.