Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/April 2010: Difference between revisions
SandyGeorgia (talk | contribs) archive 3, first pass |
+1 withdrawn |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{TOC limit}} |
{{TOC limit}} |
||
== April 2010 == |
== April 2010 == |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Manchester United F.C./archive3}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Gillian Welch/archive1}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Gillian Welch/archive1}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tropical Storm Leslie (2000)/archive1}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tropical Storm Leslie (2000)/archive1}} |
Revision as of 01:54, 5 April 2010
April 2010
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was not promoted by Dabomb87 01:54, 5 April 2010 [1].
- Nominator(s): Tomlock01 (talk) 20:14, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured article because it has recently been dramatically improved and has been promoted to GA status. I feel that the article meets all the FA criteria, and is comparable in quality to Manchester City F.C. and Arsenal F.C., both of which are FA. Tomlock01 (talk) 20:14, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments. No dab links. Link to http://www.uefa.com/uefa/keytopics/kind=4096/newsid=648350.html is dead; http://www.joinmust.org/news/newsletter/UnitedShareholder26.pdf#page=10 does not contain the title it is supposed to lead to. Ucucha 20:23, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed both.Tomlock01 (talk) 21:05, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I do not believe that this Featured Article nomination is a good idea right now. I think we should see what results the current Peer Review yields and then bring it to FAC, but not just yet. – PeeJay 20:32, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- PeeJay, I think it meets all the criteria, and surely this process is a form of peer review? Tomlock01 (talk) 20:41, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As you wish. – PeeJay 20:57, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose, sorry. The article does not get anywhere near using the range of sources that would be appropriate for an FA. Only three books are cited, but on this topic, there are obviously going to be many more out there: [2]. I'm therefore not confident that this article represents comprehensive coverage of the subject. Under FA criterion 1(c), the article must be "a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature on the topic". --Mkativerata (talk) 21:59, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for comments, but I disagree. Arsenal F.C. is probably the most comparable FA, and has only 4 books listed, but in uses just 2 of these in actually providing references, the other 2 being listed simply as 'further reading'. Furthermore, the 3 books listed in the Manchester United article are complete histories, and as such represents comprehensive coverage.Tomlock01 (talk) 22:11, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Arsenal is probably at risk of de-listing as it was listed a long time ago when criteria were laxer. I understand that the books cited in this article might provide comprehensive histories, but the FA criterion is "a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature on the topic". That's for good reason: even books that cover a topic comprehensively will take different angles and have different focuses. This is a good article, no doubt, but to be the best work of an encylopaedia, I would expect all relevant literature to be consulted. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:15, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose, with sadness. I've been thinking about this nomination for the last couple of hours; my initial thoughts were that the prose is terrible, and marginal even for GA, but that can be addressed in fairly short order. My real concern having considered it though is in the article's coverage, somewhat mirroring Mkativerata's point above. This club is a global phenomenon, it can't be compared to Arsenal or Manchester City, and that needs to be explored in the article. Also, FAC is not a peer review, and should not be treated as one. I'd recommend that this FAC was withdrawn. Malleus Fatuorum 00:14, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Malleus, I appreciate your comments. But this article has nothing to lose, and plenty to gain from going through the FAC process.
- Wikipedia has a chronic shortage of reviewers across the board, and FAC is not the place for a peer review. FAC is about assessing whether an article meets the FA criteria, and this one clearly doesn't. Malleus Fatuorum 00:55, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – Considering that there are two opposes already, and the main editor of the article (PeeJay) believes the article isn't ready for FAC, I see no reason why this should continue. I also agree with the previous reviewers about the need for less reliance on online sources, and the need for more on their worldwide popularity—the whole section on their supporters could use some expansion, for that matter. There should at least be something on how they became so popular. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:13, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not going to flog a dead horse. Withdraw with my blessing.Tomlock01 (talk) 01:24, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 23:40, 3 April 2010 [3].
- Nominator(s): Omarcheeseboro (talk) 23:25, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I present an article on singer-songwriter Gillian Welch as a FAC. After an extensive revamp, improvement during GA nom and promotion, and a PR, I feel it is ready. Thank you in advance. Omarcheeseboro (talk) 23:25, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments. No links to disambiguation pages or dead external links; alt text good. Ucucha 23:38, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -
The lead image File:Gil-welch-fls.jpg is unlikely to be in the public domain, since the uploader doesn't seem to be the photographer. No proof of release given. --Andy Walsh (talk) 22:29, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It appears from his uploads that "Filberthockey" is indeed "Forrest L. Smith, III" (he at least claims it). He makes it clear in other file descriptions, which all exclusively credit him. I would suggest contacting Filberthockey via email or talk page to find out if he is indeed Mr. Smith. - I.M.S. (talk) 23:19, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Take a look at this photo of a waterfall, uploaded by him and credited to Forrest Smith. It looks like everything checks out, unless we have a strange case of impersonation on our hands. - I.M.S. (talk) 23:27, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, I see now. Thanks for clearing that up. --Andy Walsh (talk) 23:44, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Take a look at this photo of a waterfall, uploaded by him and credited to Forrest Smith. It looks like everything checks out, unless we have a strange case of impersonation on our hands. - I.M.S. (talk) 23:27, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment On the note on her name: Maybe it would be good to include an example of another word that is pronounced with a hard G? --Esuzu (talk • contribs) 15:18, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Oppose Per 1a. The writing just isn't quite there yet. The paragraphs are all too often a string of straightforward simple declarative sentences, creating a too-repetitive feel. The sections are all to often similar in structure: a short, simple-declarative opening then a cluster of quotes that are all preceded by a general observation... It all got a bit repetitive, again. And that one-sentence section at the end was a puzzler. I'm not knocking the article too hard; it's better than many I've seen. But not there yet. And finally I must make myself vulnerable by saying something vague and unactionable: I kept getting the feeling that "something was missing" from the content, but I couldn't quite put my finger on it. So I'm not including this last bit as part of my Oppose, but I think I have to mention it even though it isn't really actionable. I'll think about this more.• Ling.Nut 15:28, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose: Agreed, the prose isn't quite there yet. In the lede alone:
- The third sentence of the first paragraph does not parse. One of various possible ways to make it work is this: "Their sparse and dark musical style, which combines elements of Appalachian music, bluegrass, and Americana, is described by The New Yorker as 'at once innovative and obliquely reminiscent of past rural forms'".
- Revival, which is in apposition to "1996 debut", requires a comma after as well as before.
- By the end of the second paragraph, it is clear that the article fails to consistently apply or reject the serial comma.
- The first sentence of the third paragraph uses a nonidiomatic preposition. The possible choices are on and of; the current for is incorrect.
- "Bestselling platinum album" is effectively redundant. Just bestselling or platinum will do.
- "Throughout her career" is entirely unnecessary.
- In the same sentence, "several" is not idiomatic, given the context. Try "many". Or simply cut the adjective and replace "including" with "such as".
- "In addition" is entirely unnecessary.
- "Notable" is unnecessary and thus smacks of peacockery.
- A glance at the rest of the article reveals similar problems throughout. It does look strong on substance and sourcing. Please retain a good copyeditor to work on it and then bring it back.—DCGeist (talk) 07:27, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 23:40, 3 April 2010 [4].
- Nominator(s): 12george1 & Hurricanehink
I am nominating this because it is well written, images are good, and it is well referenced. None of the references are dead links (I checked). The article is also made of a variety of sources, not solely from one source; like FEMA, NHC, or NOAA. It is a good size of information for a storm that barely affected land as a tropical cyclone. It is clearly not a skin and bones article like it was about 4 years ago. 12george1 (talk) 03:29, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Have major contributors of this article been consulted, as required by FAC instructions?
- I have sent a message to Juliancolton, who else should I contact? You see Jason Rees is another but he likely knows; most of the other users made only minor contributions. Also, many of the other major contributors are not long active on Wikipedia: like Hurricane Hink. --12george1 (talk) 14:44, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Having rejoined Wikipedia, I'll be helping out with issues on this FAC. I have given it a copyedit to make sure it is up to proper standards. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:00, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments. Issues resolved.
Oppose. Most images lack alt text. Also, a dab link to Sweetwater, Florida, and a dead link to http://archives.cnn.com/2000/WEATHER/10/04/miami.flooding.01/index.html.I will strike this oppose when these issues have been resolved. Ucucha 03:42, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Thanks for the efforts made to add alt text. However, the alt text that is being added is insufficient: alt text should describe what meaning the image conveys. For the lead image, for example, the alt text should be something like "A map of the southeastern United States, northern Caribbean, and nearby Atlantic showing a large clouded area in the Atlantic east of Florida." Compare other recent hurricane FAs such as 1910 Cuba hurricane. Ucucha 04:04, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I made some better alt text descriptions, do you like them? Someone had a link on Web Archive from for the CNN article; so there are no dead links anymore. Jason Rees has also fixed the dab link to Sweetwater, Florida. --12george1 (talk) 21:09, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Looking good now. Ucucha 20:41, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I made some better alt text descriptions, do you like them? Someone had a link on Web Archive from for the CNN article; so there are no dead links anymore. Jason Rees has also fixed the dab link to Sweetwater, Florida. --12george1 (talk) 21:09, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the efforts made to add alt text. However, the alt text that is being added is insufficient: alt text should describe what meaning the image conveys. For the lead image, for example, the alt text should be something like "A map of the southeastern United States, northern Caribbean, and nearby Atlantic showing a large clouded area in the Atlantic east of Florida." Compare other recent hurricane FAs such as 1910 Cuba hurricane. Ucucha 04:04, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As im one of the "secondry authors" im gonna have to stay Netural on its promotion.
- In the lead there is a damage total inflated to 2006 USD. This needs to be updated to 2010 USD so to avoid the need of having to update this each year please use the inflation templates.Jason Rees (talk) 16:36, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In the impact section there is an inconistency with damage totals inflated to 2005 USD and 2006 USD. please do them all to 2010 USD using the inflation templates.Jason Rees (talk) 16:36, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Same with aftermath.Jason Rees (talk) 16:36, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There are also some issues with sources that if Sandygeorgia sees he/she will start moaning at WPTC or on this page.- ill fix these as i know what im doing. Jason Rees (talk) 16:36, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If you are unsure off what the template for inflation is see [List of retired Pacific typhoon names (JMA)]
- All of damage values in impact section were switch from 2005 or 2006 to 2010 inflation.--12george1 (talk) 17:24, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Use the templates please as otherwise we have to edit the article evrey time the inflation figures are updated.Jason Rees (talk) 17:31, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Inflation templates have been added.--12george1 (talk) 17:51, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Use the templates please as otherwise we have to edit the article evrey time the inflation figures are updated.Jason Rees (talk) 17:31, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- All of damage values in impact section were switch from 2005 or 2006 to 2010 inflation.--12george1 (talk) 17:24, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments -
- Per the MOS, link titles in the references shouldn't be in all capitals, even when they are in the original
- Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:04, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I fixed just fixed it so it is not all caps. --12george1 (talk) 01:43, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Alt text done; thanks.
Alt text is mostly present (thanks), but I'm afraid the alt text still needs some work. The lead text shouldn't say "Tropical Storm Leslie" as per WP:ALT#Proper names. Alt text is missing for File:Leslie 2000 track.png. The phrase "that would become Tropical Storm Leslie" should be removed as per WP:ALT#Verifiability. The alt text for File:Leslie2000rain.gif should say "Subtropical Depression Leslie", not "Tropical Storm Leslie", as the image itself says "Subtropical Depression". The phrase "Miami-Dade County, Florida" should be removed as per WP:ALT#Verifiability.Eubulides (talk) 00:47, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]- None of the featured tropical cyclone articles contain alt text for the track, as it part of a template. --12george1 (talk) 01:40, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Older featured articles often lack alt text (it's a newer requirement) but newer ones such as Hurricane Rick (2009) have alt text for the track. You can use the
|alt=
parameter of {{storm path}}; this was added in July 2009. Eubulides (talk) 01:47, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Ok, I added alt text to the storm track. --12george1 (talk) 02:22, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks; I tweaked the rainfall alt text a bit as well. Eubulides (talk) 06:14, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, I added alt text to the storm track. --12george1 (talk) 02:22, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Older featured articles often lack alt text (it's a newer requirement) but newer ones such as Hurricane Rick (2009) have alt text for the track. You can use the
- None of the featured tropical cyclone articles contain alt text for the track, as it part of a template. --12george1 (talk) 01:40, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Image copyright check: Passed. All OK. Stifle (talk) 13:38, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: Generally well done, prose is still a bit weak.
- I don't think that almost a billion dollars in damage is "little impact" -- I suggest cutting out "Leslie had little impact as a tropical cyclone." completely, and changing "Because of the lack of impact as a tropical cyclone" to something like "Because of the limited impact as a tropical cyclone".
- It's a bit wordy -- I did a few quick fixes in the Meteorological History section; perhaps you can get someone who isn't as a familiar with the general subject to go through prose?
- To that effect, "Flood waters ... caus[ed] severe problems for farmers.", that sentence was weird, isn't it obvious that heavy flooding = bad news?... I removed the last part of it, and further, the idea was expanded upon in the next sentence too (start of planting season).
- "The floodwaters, which were 4 feet (1.2 m) deep in places, also flooded thousands of cars. Many were stranded in their houses, forcing them to use canoes or inflatable rafts to move to higher grounds." -- Isn't the cars part kind of obvious, especially if you have people stranded in their homes? Perhaps you can change it to something like "The floodwaters, which were 4 feet (1.2 m) deep in places, stranded many in their houses, forcing them to use canoes ..."?
- Impact section, "nonessential" or "non-essential"? The first looks weird to me, I think the one with the hyphen is the preferred Canadian spelling (or at least by far the most common), so the "nonessential" could be the preferred American one. That's perhaps why it jumped out at me.
- Perhaps you could nix at least Tropical cyclone and List of Atlantic hurricanes from the see-alsos? They don't seem very useful. Also considering the sheer amount of Florida hurricanes, perhaps it would make sense to remove that section altogether?
Maxim(talk) 15:44, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- About the "little impact as a tropical cyclone", I guess I wanted to emphasize that the damage was from the precursor disturbance, and not from the actual storm. However, that's confusing, I'll agree, so I removed it. After all, it's explained later. I cleaned up the MH on my own, but I found someone else as well. I'm cool with the farmers flooding thing, since you're right, it's obvious there were problems. The agricultural damage has its own paragraph, after all. I hated the thousands of cars sentence! Seriously! So your version was much better. I'm cool with the non-essential, since it's essentially the same thing. Question though: should that be non-essential or non–essential? Lastly, I removed those two links, but I kept the Florida hurricanes one, since I like having a see also section in general, and Leslie was one of the bigger Florida storms of the past decade. Also, I added a link to the 2000 AHS timeline, as per Tropical Storm Henri (2003), another FA. Hope things are better now. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:10, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 23:40, 3 April 2010 [5].
An extensive article about Kentucky's only modern governor to succeed himself in office. Unfortunately missing a picture of the man, but hopefully an editor in or near Pikeville can remedy that in the future. I look forward to addressing everyone's concerns. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 21:25, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 21:28, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments. Fixed the one dab link. One external link, to http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20100210/NEWS01/2100412/1008/Patton+to+be+reappointed+as+state+council+head, is currently dead, apparently because of server maintenance. Alt text fine. Ucucha 23:22, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- CJ articles have a habit of disappearing. We might have to go archive.org on this one or something. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 15:33, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments. "His proudest acheivement, however,"—it doesn't contradict the previous statement. Please remove "however". See MOS: no hyphens after -ly. Some people would regard the use of the word "mistress" as sexist. Why are "indoor plumbing", "electricity" and "telephone" linked? Please do an audit on overlinking. Tony (talk) 01:13, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What word do you suggest instead of "mistress"? I wasn't aware it was considered sexist, but then again, I've never been accused of being closely attuned to PC language. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 15:33, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments -
- "Patton to be reappointed" link deadlinks
- Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:03, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A biographical article of a living person really should have a photo. Stifle (talk) 13:37, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Believe me; I'd love to have one, but Pikeville is six hours from me. It just isn't feasible for me to get it. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 16:30, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Image copyright check:
- File:Pike county courthouse.jpg has no source.
- File:Memorialhall.jpg is taken from flickr where it is "all rights reserved".
- The one other image is OK.
Oppose pending resolution of the above. Stifle (talk) 13:37, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've dropped a note to User:Bedford regarding the Pike County courthouse image; I'm confident that one will be cleared up in short order. The user who uploaded the image of Memorial Hall appears inactive, so I guess you can FfD it, at which point, I'll remove it from the article. I'll also drop a note at WP:KY in the next few days to see if someone in or around Lexington can take and upload a free replacement. Either way, I should hope the promotion of the article wouldn't hinge on the presence or absence of that image. I was just trying to break up the text. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 16:30, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Former Wikipedia W.Marsh, now known as "Retired Username", gave me the pic to use as the photos of KY courthouses was a pet project of his. The image was his, taken for the purpose of it being on Wikipedia. So it is usable, but may need to have its copyright check changed. There are probably other courthouse pics of his that need to be fixed; anything I personally took I either PDed, or kept copyright status but allow WP to use it.--King Bedford I Seek his grace 06:02, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, that's fine then. Leftis (atkl) 18:05, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Check the toolbox; there is a dead link. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:32, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments: I've only had a chance to look at the lead and the "Early life" section so far. Some comments follow:
- Is the presidency of Pikeville College such a big deal that it justifies relegating Patton's Governorship to the second sentence of the lead?
- "Jones appointed Patton secretary of economic development..." Not a proper noun?
- "...and improvements to the criminal justice system." Is this NPOV?
- "When he was hired by a railroad..." as a teacher?
- "He was later awarded an honorary Doctor of Public Service degree from the University of Louisville." I assume this was quite a bit later. Might it fit better in "Later life" than "Early life"? Steve Smith (talk) 21:02, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Do we know why Brown decided not to appoint Sights party chair after all?
- "Just days before the primary it was reported that Cowan's campaign had sent a fundraising letter to a firm that his office was investigating for criminal conduct regarding state contracts." Was the letter or the conduct regarding state contracts?
- I don't understand this sentence: "Particularly onerous to Rose was Patton's stated support of collective bargaining for public employees but his declaration that he would not fight for it in the upcoming 1996 legislative session." Steve Smith (talk) 09:04, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 17:03, 3 April 2010 [6].
- Nominator(s): Esuzu (talk • contribs) 11:17, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nobel Prize is a important part in Wikipedia. Many articles link to it and if a person has received the Nobel Prize it is bound to be mentioned in the lead (even in Winston Churchill who undoubtedly did greater things than win a Nobel Prize). That is why I am nominating this article a second time, the last time the major problems were sources and images and I believe those have been addressed. Esuzu (talk • contribs) 11:17, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments.
A dab link to Berling; no dead external links. Ucucha 11:22, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Was supposed to be Berlin. Changed it. Esuzu (talk • contribs) 12:36, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. Ucucha 12:46, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Was supposed to be Berlin. Changed it. Esuzu (talk • contribs) 12:36, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Surely the most notoriously "overlooked people" controversies of recent decades are Rosalind Franklin, who missed out when Watson and Crick got theirs for dna and Graham Greene who one of the judges had supposedly taken against. Neither is mentioned. (ec)One would also expect the controversies over Barak Obama and Henry Kissinger to be mentioned. Prose needs a bit of polishing - eg "oriiginating" in the first sentence. Johnbod (talk) 12:00, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Rosalind Franklin is mentioned: "Rosalind Franklin, who was a key contributor in the discovery of the structure of DNA in 1953, died of ovarian cancer in 1958, four years before the achievement was recognised by awarding Francis Crick, James D. Watson, and Maurice Wilkins the Prize for Medicine or Physiology in 1962." It doesn't mention Greene but I'll look into it. But he's probably not the most notorious "overlooked people" but he might deserve a mention. --Esuzu (talk • contribs) 12:13, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As to what you added: First of all, I can't see any problem with "originating in" seems completely grammatical to me.
- Rosalind Franklin is mentioned: "Rosalind Franklin, who was a key contributor in the discovery of the structure of DNA in 1953, died of ovarian cancer in 1958, four years before the achievement was recognised by awarding Francis Crick, James D. Watson, and Maurice Wilkins the Prize for Medicine or Physiology in 1962." It doesn't mention Greene but I'll look into it. But he's probably not the most notorious "overlooked people" but he might deserve a mention. --Esuzu (talk • contribs) 12:13, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, the article has had no section about "Controversial Recipients". It is located on Nobel Prize controversies#Controversial recipients but it might be good to have some of them present on the main page as well. Anybody who has any opinions? --Esuzu (talk • contribs) 14:03, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Update: I have written a section that can be inserted to the Nobel Prize articles controversies section now it is the first thing you see when you click on this link Nobel Prize controversies#Controversial recipients. Since the Nobel Prize article doesn't allow new sections just to be put in in the main articles controversies section directly I have to have some support before I do it. What do you think? --Esuzu (talk • contribs) 15:53, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have now added the new section and a new image. Please take a look. --Esuzu (talk • contribs) 23:16, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, the article has had no section about "Controversial Recipients". It is located on Nobel Prize controversies#Controversial recipients but it might be good to have some of them present on the main page as well. Anybody who has any opinions? --Esuzu (talk • contribs) 14:03, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Is it "Nobel Prize" or "Nobel prize"? I changed two instances of the latter to the former, I think, but then gave up because there were so many..• Ling.Nut 10:57, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It should be as you say, "Nobel Prize". Changed the ones that was incorrect. Thanks. --Esuzu (talk • contribs) 14:31, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Rambo's Revenge (talk · contribs)
- Images
- I was reviewing the Nobel images as fine then began questioning things for File:NobelPrize.JPG and File:Nobel Prize.png. I'm know a bit about images but would like someone (a lawyer?) to clarify the position with these as it is complicated.
- The (Nov 2008) photograph is of a "3d" work but is released into the public domain so that is fine.
- The design was decided in 1902, and published pre-1923 so that bit is okay.
- The design was changed in 1980 but this image of a design prior to that so is okay.
- This is a 1950 medal (presumably cast after 1923) and I know there is no originality in making images. My question is whether there sufficient originality in creating a replica (i.e. casting a medal) to make this medal copyright when it was made? This suggests not but is not really backed up by anything. Is there a court case or license to cover this? Basically, even if the image is okay the licensing needs tightening. I'm prepared to do it if someone asserts I am correct but this is a legal thing and I don't want to put myself in the wrong position.
- Turns out this has got plenty of attention in the past it just isn't linked to from the current images.
- Talk:Nobel_Prize/Archive 1#Copyright violations in use of the Nobel medal throughout Wikipedia articles and Wikipedia Commons (September 2006)
- File talk:Nobel medal dsc06171.png (various discussions)
- Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2007/November#Image:Nobel Prize.png (November 2007)
- That would be very helpful. I'm not a lawyer neither am I very good at image licensing. So before I nominated the article I asked User:Elcobbola on the talk page of Nobel Prize: Talk:Nobel Prize#Images Copyright (from FA page). From his response there I understood it was OK to use but perhaps not. How do we find somebody, like a lawyer or similar who could help us with this? Esuzu (talk • contribs) 11:47, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia:Media copyright questions, or perhaps try User:MGodwin, someone who represents the Wikipedia Foundation and I think may have past involvement with these discussions. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 12:03, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've contacted Mike Godwin so hopefully we can get some help from him :) Esuzu (talk • contribs) 13:33, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This is the answer I got: "In general, merely casting a replica of an out-of-copyright image is not regarded as original enough to create new copyrightability. Assuming the facts are as you report them, I think you are fine.
- I've contacted Mike Godwin so hopefully we can get some help from him :) Esuzu (talk • contribs) 13:33, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia:Media copyright questions, or perhaps try User:MGodwin, someone who represents the Wikipedia Foundation and I think may have past involvement with these discussions. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 12:03, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
--Mike" Esuzu (talk • contribs) 22:28, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Paul Krugman-press conference Dec 07th, 2008-8.jpg and File:Giovanni Jona-Lasinio-Nobel Lecture-2.jpg state that "This file is published under the following Creative Commons license: Attribution NonCommercial ShareAlike 2.0". Wikipedia requires commercial use, but the images have also been attempted as licensed under GFDL-1.2. User seems active so might be worth contacting to clarify.
- Contacted the user so hopefully we'll get an answer soon. --Esuzu (talk • contribs) 12:00, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, there is nothing to clarify, the file has simply two licenses to choose from. Since the file is published under GFDL-1.2 only commercial use is possible. --Prolineserver (talk) 15:34, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay thanks for clarifying. It isn't something I've seen before. As for File:Alfred Nobels will-November 25th, 1895.jpg I am I right in thinking it isn't actually a PD work and that this change reflects the actual status of a (potentially copyrightable) photographic reproduction released by you. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:28, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, there is nothing to clarify, the file has simply two licenses to choose from. Since the file is published under GFDL-1.2 only commercial use is possible. --Prolineserver (talk) 15:34, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Contacted the user so hopefully we'll get an answer soon. --Esuzu (talk • contribs) 12:00, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Other images seem fine. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 02:10, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, if you want I just release my part of the will as PD, I want to put it on a stable license basis rather than support a stupid Swedish copyright regulation. --Prolineserver (talk) 20:55, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- References
- References that link to Bibliography e.g. 8. Elizabeth T Crawford ..., 69. Irwin Abrams ..., and many others. These should be listed Surname, Forname consistently like ref 11.
- Formatted them correctly. --Esuzu (talk • contribs) 23:09, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ref 10 needs accessdates
- Fixed, wasn't written correctly.Esuzu (talk • contribs) 12:32, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ref 23 Alfred Nobel. "Alfred Nobel's Will (English version)" needs tidying up
- Reformatted. That should be enough right? Esuzu (talk • contribs) 12:38, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ref 38 (news.bbc.co.uk, Nobel prize for viral discoveries) needs citation template to format correctly
- Reformatted. Esuzu (talk • contribs) 12:53, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Same goes for ref 41 (The Nobel Prize in Chemistry 2008)
- Reformatted. Esuzu (talk • contribs) 12:53, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And 94 (Nobel Prize Foundation Website)
- Reformatted. Esuzu (talk • contribs) 12:53, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Use links in references. For example link to The Local in ref 96 (Nobel Banquet: the feast of feasts – The Local) instead of writing "Thelocal.se"
- Will reformat all that needs it. I am currently on the history section and will continue later. --Esuzu (talk • contribs) 14:51, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Done! Took some time but all should be linked now that can be linked. --Esuzu (talk • contribs) 22:51, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What makes http://www.ceptualinstitute.com/ a reliable source?
- Ref 128 (Remarks by the President on Winning the Nobel Peace Prize). Format to say where it is from. Don't say "the same day".
- Reformatted.Esuzu (talk • contribs) 13:04, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ref 132: Not dead, but does need citation template etc. so it is correctly formatted.
- Reformatted.Esuzu (talk • contribs) 13:12, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ref 133: "5:34 p.m. ET" is not the author
- Reformatted. Esuzu (talk • contribs) 13:12, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ref 145 (Akademien väljer helst en europé) needs formatting as proper reference. Also add the
|language=
field.
- Reformatted.Esuzu (talk • contribs) 13:23, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't comprehensive and issues like odd/inconsistent linking, not putting Surname first seem to recur regularly. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 11:38, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Prose
Just some examples of prose which isn't of a professional standard:
- "After the award ceremonies banquets are held at the Stockholm City Hall and the Grand Hotel in Oslo." full stop?
- Semicolon is better right?Esuzu (talk • contribs) 12:11, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "Al Gore and the IPCC, 2007 winners of the Nobel Peace Prize, have had the validity of their winning of the prize disputed as well as being politically motivated." What is politically motivated
- Removed. Would take too much space to explain. Esuzu (talk • contribs) 12:07, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "Before 1930, the banquet was held in the ballroom of Stockholm’s Grand Hotel." Which banquet, all of them or the Peace prize one as the preceding sentence indicates there are many.
- The Swedish banquet. Changed it in the text. Esuzu (talk • contribs) 12:16, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "10th of December" don't use th and of
- Fixed. Couldn't find any more similar problems either.
- "The recipients' lectures are held in the days prior to the award ceremony." - you later say this isn't always the case
- Fixed. Esuzu (talk • contribs) 12:24, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "Since 1902, the King of Sweden has presented all the prizes in Stockholm" how can he if the Peace Prize is in Norway.
- Clarified. Esuzu (talk • contribs) 12:27, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
These were found without really reading the article and came from just one section. This only passed GA the other day and is a long way off FA standard. Suggest withdrawing and getting this peer reviewed.
- Perhaps. How do I withdraw it? Esuzu (talk • contribs) 13:19, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Just tell one of the FAC delegates, here for example, User Talk:SandyGeorgia. Graham Colm (talk) 14:13, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose the promotion of this article because currently it fails 1a and 2c (at least). Rambo's Revenge (talk) 11:38, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose -sorry. The article is far from FA standard, the prose is clunky and not at all engaging. The long quotation from Nobel's will spoils the look of the article and adds very little. It might make a useful footnote. There are odd expressions like "happens to die", which presumably just means "dies" and more worrying, inaccuracies. Frederick Sanger did not receive his second prize for "in 1980 for virus nucleotide sequencing", he was awarded it for inventing a method of determining the nucleotide base sequences of all DNA. And, to say he got his first for "the structure of the insulin molecule" is lazy prose; he determined what the structure was. These errors made me lose confidence in the article's overall accuracy. The gallery of the 2009 winners seems most out of place and although not quite contravening WP:NPOV, it goes against the spirit of it. Only time will tell who were worthy recipients. The Lead is also very poor, with all those blue links, and this "The Nobel Prizes in the specific disciplines (physics, chemistry, physiology or medicine, and literature) and the Prize in Economics are widely regarded as the most prestigious award one can receive in those fields", while repeating the categories already given a couple of lines above, just means the prizes for peace and economics are not regarded as prestigious, which I don't think is true. Because of the subject, I was looking forward to reading this contribution, but I was disappointed; it's a very dull read. Graham Colm (talk) 17:13, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please clarify what isn't WP:NPOV with the gallery?
- About the "The Nobel Prizes in the specific disciplines (physics, chemistry, physiology or medicine, and literature) and the Prize in Economics are widely regarded as the most prestigious award one can receive in those fields" sentence. I believe all of them is prestigious too. I'll change the sentence. Would "The Nobel Prizes in the specific disciplines are widely regarded as the most prestigious award one can receive in those fields." be better? That way it includes all the prizes. Also fixed the "happen to die".
- Fixed Sanger part. OK now?
- No, it wasn't "nucleic acids" it was just DNA.
- Changed it. Esuzu (talk • contribs) 12:55, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- About the citation from his last will. I'd wouldn't be against removing that one either. That together with the "Lack of a Nobel Prize in Mathematics" section is probably the weakest. However when I tried to remove the latter I was met with people who wanted to keep it extremely badly. I'd say it is enough to have it on the Controversies page. Anybody have opinions? --Esuzu (talk • contribs) 23:15, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Further comments– The use of "prize" and "Prize" is inconsistent throughout the article. I saw "the peace prize", "Peace Prize" and even "the prizes has" (sic). Graham Colm (talk) 10:05, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You have one link to "Discover magazine", no other info. Yesterday I couldn't access it. If it's accessible, it needs to be fully specified; if not, it needs to be rmv'd.. It seems as though you've been working on the references. That's good; they were looking a little rough a few days ago. You give the full title of every book in every reference. You are free to do so, but is it necessary? Forex, I count 16 instances of "The Nobel prize: a history of genius, controversy, and prestige"... wouldn't that clutter the page a bit, and conceivably slow load times? • Ling.Nut 03:08, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've fixed the Discover Magazine reference. It is accessible for me at least. Might have been temporary down-time perhaps. About the book refs: I've been planning on doing that too. Since they link to the book directly it should be enough to have the name perhaps. ThanksEsuzu (talk • contribs) 09:19, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have now reformatted all refs. Looks a lot neater now. Esuzu (talk • contribs) 09:33, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.