Talk:Nobel Prize in Physics
|Nobel Prize in Physics has been listed as a Natural sciences good article under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do, and if it no longer meets these criteria, it can be reassessed.
Review: May 6, 2015. ( ).
|A news item involving Nobel Prize in Physics was featured on Wikipedia's main page in the In the news section on 7 October 2008.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
- 1 Untitled
- 2 Detail?
- 3 Otto Stern
- 4 RFC: Country – ambiguous or not
- 5 RFC: Country data in Nobel lists
- 6 Dates
- 7 Award cermony and nomitation process
- 8 Ongoing Wikipedia:Media Copyright Questions matter
- 9 Image caption
- 10 Emilio Segre
- 11 Criticism
- 12 GA Review
1994's first winner is missing.... AKismet 20:10, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
It's the major of both of them. --DarkDiamonD 22:37, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
Shouldn't this be more than just a list. The main Nobel Prize page does not contain much information about the specific prizes, merely provides a link. I went to this page looking for when it is issued, for example. At least some rudamentry information could be provided here. Harley peters 19:52, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
- Agreed. In fact, the list of names itself should be removed from this article, since that information is already found in List of Nobel laureates#Physics and Category:Nobel laureates in Physics. Links to those two locations would suffice. Having redundant copies of bulk information like this is bad, because it takes more work to keep the data up to date and correct.--Srleffler 02:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
- However, the list in List of Nobel laureates#Physics doesn't provide any note as to why the prize was awarded; this should be added to that article if we are to expunge the list from this article. Also, should the list really be split up into decades? If not to prevent a gigantic table, it seems arbitrary. EunuchOmerta 03:24, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Here are some remarks to the countries associated with the nobel prize winners. I think some of them are completely wrong. e.g. I'm not sure what Hans Bethe has to do with France, except that he was born in Strassbourg that was then German. But then he had an american citizenship, therefore at best he should be american/german. There are a couple more of these mistakes(e.g. Marie Goeppert-Mayer as Polish). I think the cleanest thing would be to use the countries given on http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/ (maybe together with the country of birth).
What do the flags in front of the winners names mean? Are they the current flag in the contry where the scientist is living?
In the case of Otto Stern the flag cannot be right. in the year 1943 Hitler still ruled germany and in 1888 - his birthyear - Germany existed as "Das deutsche Kaiserreich". The flag "Black-red-gold" only was during the "Weimarer Republik" and now in the "Bundesrepublik Deutschland".
The same problem is with "Johannes Stark"
RFC: Country – ambiguous or not
There is currently a request for comments at Talk:Nobel Prize in Chemistry#RFC: Country – ambiguous or not to discuss whether the country (in this case, the flag in front of each Nobel laureate) in the table listing all of the Nobel laureates is ambiguous or not. Your comments in this matter would be appreciated. panda 13:52, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
There is currently a Request for Comments about the country data in the Nobel lists at Talk:Nobel Prize in Chemistry#RFC: Country data in Nobel lists. Your comments would be appreciated. The results of the RFC may affect all of the Nobel Prize articles. panda 16:46, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Some RFC updates:
- You can find the definition of the country data included in the Nobel lists in the RFC under the point Country data defined.
- There is currently a consensus moving towards removing all of the flags in the Nobel lists unless someone can devise an acceptable scheme for them. This portion of the RFC (point 2) will be closed in 2 weeks, i.e.,
31 October 200724 October 2007, assuming it is not challenged. That is, the consensus will be to remove all flags from the lists.
–panda 15:29, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
This RFC has been closed. The following was reach by consensus:
- The country data on the Nobel Foundation list is the laureate's nationality (according to the book "Nobel: The Man and His Prizes"); knowing this, there are at least a couple errors for the laureate's nationality in the Nobel Foundation's list.
- The countries/nationalities should be included in the list.
- Use common names for the countries/nationalities. All variants of Germany should simply be called Germany except for West Germany, even though there never were any laureate's from East Germany. Only one editor commented on which variant of Germany should be linked to (the current one), so it's difficult to say if there is any consensus about that aspect.
I notice the year sections are broken up neatly by 25 years until you get to the last two, you have: 1976-2000 which fits the pattern and 2000-2007 which doesn't. It should read '2001-present'. I tried changing it but I really don't get how to format these tables. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 13:56, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Award cermony and nomitation process
I have added sections about the award ceremony and nomination process by adding content from the Nobel Prize article. The purpose is to have a general introduction about the prize, and some details specific to the physics prize in these sections. More work is needed for the later.Labongo 14:23, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Ongoing Wikipedia:Media Copyright Questions matter
Until this matter is fully resolved, please do not keep inserting that image [derived from a photograph of the front of a 1947 medal on display; 2005] in this article. Please see each of the other articles on each Nobel Prize (R) for format that they have been using for a considerable amount of time. There is an attempt to make this format consistent across these articles. The External links section provides an image of the official Nobel Prize (R) Medal for Physics. The side depicted by the image that is currently removed from the article is actually of a side that is on every Nobel Medal (except the Nobel Peace Prize (R) Medal. The side specific to Physics is different from the image depicted that is currently deleted. The user adding it knows that an ongoing dispute is not resolved and that each use of this image in Wikipedia requires a separate "fair use rationale" according to Wikipedia policies and guidelines relating to images. I've tried to provide a detailed general "fair use" rationale. Such an image does not belong above the photo of its first recipient. The image is of the 1947 Nobel Prize (R) Medal for Physics given to a different person, which is on display in Appleton Tower at the U of Edinburgh. It is not pertinent to this more-general article on the Nobel Prize (R) in Physics. But if there were a section discussing that particular medal to that particular person (perhaps in the article about him), perhaps it would be an appropriate illustration (if it meets Wikipedia's media guidelines pertaining to copyright and fair use. That is what is still under consideration. Please be patient. There is currently no need for this particular image as an illustration in this particular article. It's the wrong (front) side of the medal to use to illustrate the Nobel Prize (R) Medal for Physics (and Chemistry)."The Nobel Prize Medal in Physics and Chemistry" (The "back side" is described as "The medal of The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences" for this Nobel Prize (R) [in Physics and in Chemistry] and also as a "Registered trademark of the Nobel Foundation"). See the External links for exact images of the medal. --NYScholar 02:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- Per every other user who has opined on this issue, please leave the image in place until there is a ruling somewhere that it should not be here. Thank you. -- But|seriously|folks 02:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- (ec) Sorry NYS, but I'm not going to sit around and wait for MizraBot to delete this image for it not being used in any articles. (As appears to already have happened to the Nobel Prize for Literature image). Especially as there is strong current of opinion that this is actually a free image, taken of an object of which the U.S. Copyright has expired. (As well as being free to use in the UK, by virtue of the UK's laws on freedom of panorama).
- Even if that weren't the case, the image clearly satisfies the criterion that it "increases readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." Namely: it increases readers' understanding of what the prize medal looks like, and that is a relevant part of the topic.
- If there is a good image of the other side of the medal, that would be a fine thing to show too.
- Frankly don't get why you seem to be on a one-man crusade to get this image deleted, when even the Nobel Foundation appears to be happy for us to use it in an article like this on a Nobel prize. NYS, I fear you do not reflect the consensus, or indeed anybody's opinion but your own. Jheald 02:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
As one who worked with various Nobel Prize (R) medal images for about 2 years, I have encountered a lot of conflicting points of view on their legitimacy or illegitimacy in Wikipedia. They have been deleted by administrators in the past (prior to the past few months), and I am not the only one who has expressed concerns about them. If you haven't read all of the discussions over this extended period of time (as I have done), please don't make such false generalizations. I quoted the descriptions of the medals so that people could understand what David.Monniaux's (initial uploader) and Anubis3's images depict. I am not on a "one-man crusade" etc. to get this image" or the other one "deleted"; I want the descriptions on the image pages to be accurate and in keeping with Wikipedia's own policies and guidelines pertaining to such images, and I want for their uses in Wikipedia to be in keeping with at the least "good articles" criteria. Otherwise, their uses would prevent articles from achieving (at least) that status. (See the talk pages relating to articles on Nobel Prize, the various Nobel Prizes (R), and the various Nobel Laureates for previous discussions (since 2005). --NYScholar 03:06, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
I added a more accurate caption (in the use of the image in the article Nobel Prize in Physics) describing what is being depicted. --NYScholar 03:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC) [Posted also in the talk page of the image. --NYScholar 03:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)]
- I noticed that the current template on the image page requires adding to the caption, so I've done that as required. That could change if the various templates change. --NYScholar 18:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Nobel Prize in Physics/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
- The lead has to be expanded and split into at least two paragraphs in order to summarise the article and comply per WP:LEAD
- "is an yearly award given" - a yearly award
- ""for the outstanding contributions for mankind in physics in the past year"" - this quote needs to be paraphrased as direct quotes are discouraged in the lead, especially in the openeing sentences
- "year." It" - syntax error here, full stop should be after "year"
- "The first Nobel Prize in Physics was awarded to a German physicist Wilhelm Conrad Röntgen, "in recognition of the extraordinary services he has rendered by the discovery of the remarkable rays (or x-rays)."" - this doesn't need to be in quotes again as it would sound great without them
- "Though Nobel wrote several wills during his lifetime, the last was written a little over a year before he died" - this makes it sound like he wrote his will after he died?
- "that it was approved by the Storting (the Norwegian Parliament)" - no need for the extra "the"
- Half of the Nomination and selection section is unsourced!
- Also I think that some of the smaller paragraphs in this section could be merged to create bigger ones, in order to improve prose flow
- "has been "tested by time." In practice" - full stop should be after quote
- Can the Ceremony section be expanded at all? If not possible it might be worth merging it
- Is the Laureates section necessary to be there? It has no content?
- No dead links, though the toolserver picked up one of the external links as a virus?
Just some prose/organistional issues that stand in the way before this can meet the GA criteria. Also one of the sections contains little sources, so that will need to be addressed too. Everything else is relatively minor though so it shouldn't be too difficult to address the rest. Good luck! JAGUAR 15:23, 6 May 2015 (UTC)