Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Michael Faraday Prize/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 [1].

Michael Faraday Prize[edit]

Nominator(s): — neuro(talk)(review)
Toolbox

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. — neuro(talk)(review) 00:51, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Is it possible to expand the lead a bit more?—Chris! ct 01:03, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Ok, just asking—Chris! ct 01:41, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Truco
General
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?
  • 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
  • Tables and references check out up to speed.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 23:38, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- Previous issues have been resolved to meet WP:WIAFL standards.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 15:35, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support remains, in spite of the new FL criteria. –Juliancolton | Talk 16:12, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
  • "the medal itself is silver gilt"-->the medal itself is made of silver gilt
  • "it has never missed a year"-->it has been presented every year since its inception
  • "the medal is awarded by the President of the Royal Society" Can you convert this to active voice?
  • "This has occurred four times to date"
  • Per WP:CAPTION, sentence fragments should not have periods at the end. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:04, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:19, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Publications (newspapers, magazines and journals) should be italicized. You can do this by changing publisher= to work= in the citation templates. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:04, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 19:41, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
*Comments
    • The lead should be bigger, I'm afraid, as far as I'm concerned. One para just seems too light.
      • It was two paragraphs -- Ironholds condensed them into one. What else would you suggest we included? — neuro(talk)(review) 20:59, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • On my browser (Safari), the Name column appears too narrow so most recipient's surnames are on the line after their first name. Consider expanding that column by about 25%.
    • I think abbreviations such as COPUS ought to be linked or explained. You have no linking in the rationales, and that makes the rationales themselves difficult to understand from a non-expert perspective. We need to appeal to all readers here, not just scientists.
      • Looking for abbrevs now, and linking. — neuro(talk)(review) 20:59, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Whichever CREST is being mentioned, I don't know, but no relevant article appears to exist. — neuro(talk)(review) 21:02, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Rambling Man (talk) 20:59, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Despite the new FL criteria, this list is still up to those standards. My Support for promotion stands.--Truco 14:57, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment date and accessdates in the references should be in the same date format throughout. Matthewedwards :  Chat  02:29, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/Michael_Faraday_Prize/archive1&oldid=1143898830"