Wikipedia:Peer review/Rumford Medal/archive1

Rumford Medal


A former FL article. I've listed this article for peer review because I feel like I've addressed all of the issues that were brought up in the article's FLRC discussion. However, the lead and prose of the article might need improvement. I'm looking for any feedback to improve the article so as to bring it back to FL-status.

Thanks, Nitro Absynthe (talk) 07:26, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Kavyansh

 * " known as Count Rumford, who is known for his works on" — to avoid repetition of 'known', can we rephrase 'who is known for his works' to 'famous for his works' or something similar?
 * Reply: Changed from 'who is known for his works' to 'who is noted for his works'. Please let me know if there is an issue here.
 * '£1000' v. '£2,000' — Inconsistency in comma, it seems. Please do let me know if I am missing something here.
 * Reply: ✅. Missed that error. Fixed it.
 * "Presented by Britain's Royal Society" — I feel we don't have a evident need to specify 'Britain' here, let me know if you have a contrasting viewpoint.
 * Reply: Agreed. Other articles of RS Awards have omitted this too. Changed it to 'Presented by the Royal Society'.
 * "British scientist Benjamin Thompson, known as" v. "Count Rumford (Sir Benjamin Thompson)" — I feel there should be consistency in the usage of 'Sir'.
 * Reply: ✅. Added 'Sir' for consistency.
 * You might wanna highlight the row in grey for the years when No award was given. Something like what I have done for 1976 here
 * Reply: ✅.
 * Please go through the alt text once again. For instance, for this image, we have alt text: "Black-and-white photographic portrait of Benjamin Thompson". Now neither is it Black-and-white nor is it a photograph (its a painting, so just writing 'portrait' would work). On a positive note, its really great to see that you have used alt text!
 * Reply: ✅. Fixed the errors in the alt text.
 * Do we need sorting feature for Nationality column? Moreover, how is sorting being handled for those distinguished gentlemen having multiple citizenship?
 * Reply: Sorting feature for 'Nationality' was already present when it was ; I didn't know if removing that would amount to vandalism, so I didn't change it. I don't know if it would make sense now to keep it sortable with 'multiple citizenship' awardees present, so I've removed it.
 * Our citations have both 'Royal Society' and 'The Royal Society' used as the website name. Need some consistency there.
 * Reply: ✅. 'Royal Society' kept as website name in all citations.
 * Also, how have we decided which websites in citations are to be linked and which are not?
 * Reply: I tried to link citations according to MOS:DL, but I now realize repeat links are allowed for citations. Added WLs to all for consistency.
 * "13 Aug 2003" v. "5 August 2004 v. "26 Jan 2009" — Abbreviate it everywhere or nowhere. These are just some examples, please go through all citations.
 * Reply. ✅. Dates kept unabbreviated in all citations.

Well done! This truly deserves to be a FL. These are just a few points, mostly suggestions, which I feel will help this excellent list to transform into "what we believe to be the best lists on the English Wikipedia"! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:58, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the detailed review. I've made the necessary changes, please let me know if I've made an error anywhere. If the edits were satisfactory, do you think the article in its current state can be put for FLC? Or would it be too soon? Nitro Absynthe (talk) 19:24, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I haven't checked sources for verifiability, nor have I done the accessibility review for table with a great depth, but except those points, this seems an excellent FLC candidate. I'd say just nominate it, there is absolutely nothing too significant that FLC cannot handle. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 20:17, 26 June 2024 (UTC)