Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Milner Award/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 Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 7 June 2021 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Milner Award

[edit]

Milner Award (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Wretchskull (talk) 17:37, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

After taking a hiatus from my main projects, I decided to dabble in lists and gain some experience. The Milner Award looked like an appealing start, and I might attempt to get all Royal Society awards to featured status if time doesn't become an issue. Huge thanks to PresN for reviewing the list and giving feedback. I believe the list is comprehensive enough to meet the FL criteria. Wretchskull (talk) 17:37, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
  • "is annually awarded" - I think "is awarded annually" is more natural wording
  • I agree, fixed it.
  • "the 2020 lecture was held under a Zoom webinar" - the word "under" seems odd here. I would personally say "as part of" or even just "as"
  • Changed to "as".
Comments from DanCherek
  • "made up of three award cycles": The use of the word "cycles" here is odd to me, particularly because it sounds like all three of those groups are represented on the committee at the same time, and the specific word doesn't appear in the source. Is that just a phrase I'm not familiar with?
  • Removed it; it would be redundant regardless.
  • Serge Abiteboul image needs better alt text
  • Done.
  • Thomas A. Henzinger: any reason for including the middle initial? His article doesn't use it, and neither does the source for that entry.
  • Removed it.
  • Xavier Leroy citation: This one got me confused for a while because I was looking at this spreadsheet (linked from the award's official website) and it turns out they accidentally switched Leroy's and Henzinger's citations. But I don't Leroy's citation in the list is the right one anyway, becase I'm pretty sure the cited source just took that phrase from the quote from him. Instead, I believe the correct citation is "In recognition of his exceptional achievements in computer programming which includes the design and implementation of the OCaml programming language", which is consistent with this announcement.
  • @DanCherek: I see. The problem is that I cannot find a secondary source stating the citation as it says here. Do you think I should just use that Royal Society source instead?
  • Done.
  • Done.
  • Done.
  • Done.
  • Generally for references, if you're naming the organization or institution that is publishing the information, use |publisher= so that it's not italicized. But if it's the name of a work (e.g. a book, encyclopedia, newspaper, magazine, journal, etc.) then italics should be used.
  • Done, but some websites have a "Department of Computer Science" or other names along with the institution. What do you think about the reference layout now? Should I refrain from mixing both "website" and "publisher" and simply put both the institution and department under "publisher"?
    • I think putting both under "publisher" makes sense because otherwise it sounds like Oxford publishes a journal titled Department of Computer Science. I'm not an expert at formatting though so whoever does the source review may be able to give a more experienced opinion. DanCherek (talk) 11:55, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay. I put both under "publisher".

Overall nice work! Best, DanCherek (talk) 02:22, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
  • "who,[1] among" – footnote is placed a bit awkwardly; maybe move it to the end of the sentence?
  • I added the ref right before "who", what do you think?
  • "been resident there" → "has lived in Europe" (your wording isn't technically wrong, but it's a bit unfamiliar in its usage)
  • Done.
  • Table can be made sortable, with the image and reference columns made unsortable
  • Done
  • Archive sources if possible
  • Done

— RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:32, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support – excellent work! RunningTiger123 (talk) 00:31, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)
@PresN: Thank you for the heads-up - done. Wretchskull (talk) 08:19, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source review – The reliability of the references appears to be fine, and the link-checker tool shows no issues. One minor formatting tweak would be helpful: ref 7 could use an en dash to replace the hyphen for style purposes. That was the only issue I found with the sourcing. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:14, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Giants2008: Done - thank you! Wretchskull (talk) 22:04, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
With that, I'd say the source review has been passed. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:37, 2 June 2021 (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/Milner_Award/archive1&oldid=1027265773"