I am nominating this for featured list because I think it meats the criteria. ResMar 19:13, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
It certainly seems to "meat" criteria... hehe. Anyway, Resident Mario is leaving for vacation today, so I'll be taking this over until he is back, unless it is promoted/archived before then. ceranthor 19:54, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm back. It's 11:34 here so I can't take this on today, but thanks for it Cer. I owe you one. ResMar 03:42, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
'The endowment was created by a bequest of $1000 to the Academy from Benjamin Thompson, or "Count Rumford," in 1796.' -- Is this US Dollar? If so, link to that instead of the article of the symbol itself.
'As the prize is awarded by the American Academy of Arts and Science, all of the recipients are American, except for one, John Stanley Plaskett, who is from British Columbia.' -- 1)'As the prize' --> Because the prize 2)Why was he an exception?
Grammer fixed. It doesn't say why he was the exception. ResMar 00:01, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
No reason can be found with research?--Truco503 00:13, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Lemmie see what I can find on the guy. ResMar 00:19, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
There's plenty on the guy, and a few mentions of him getting the award (under "awards" and such), but nothing of why he, a Canadian, got it. The award itself doesn't have any large references, either. ResMar 00:28, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Oh, okay then.--Truco503 19:28, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
I would expand the lead a bit to explain and summarize the list a bit more, i.e. describe the contributions of some of the significant winners, note some notable winners such as recurring winners in a certain field, etc.
This list follows the model set by the list Rumford Medal, which actually has a shorter lead. Moreover, there's no more informtion about the prize itself to add, and I'm not sure what to add by way of statistics. ResMar 12:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Okay its fine then.--Truco503 19:28, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Chris, remove the ref column and just add the note in the rationale column.
Remove at least four images, too much white space towards the end of the article.
I've shrunk the images down twofold to 120px. I hope it suffices, because removing images means removing all of them, and I truly think that it adds something important to the article. ResMar 00:01, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
That won't suffice, you need to manually remove the images. There is still a lot of white space.--Truco503 00:13, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Define "whitespace." Do you mean the part that's leaning out of alignment with the table? ResMar 00:16, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
I've removed one, the last one. ResMar 13:25, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
You need to remove at least 3 more. Whitespace is the empty space that is left by the excess of images towards the bottom of the article. For one, its leaves the white space. Second, there should be no images in any other section than those in the section where the table is located. Removing images will not hurt the list in any way.--Truco503 19:28, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Took out a few more.
The work for the general references is used incorrectly, it shouldn't be used to explain what the link is about.--Truco503 23:08, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Support -- On my screen resolution, which is pretty wide, the images run past the section in which the table is in, but others say it doesn't, so it may just be mines. Other than that, previous issues resolved/clarified; list meets WP:WIAFL.--Truco503 14:53, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
I checked the previous version (with the extra photos) and it looked fine at 1024x768 but three photos were stacked far beyond the last section at 1440x900. If the photos must go I suggest trading some of the current photos with a more recent recipient or two, just to even things out. Currently, the last photo is of the 1976 recipient.
Right, well, it's supposed to match up with the recepient's column in the table on the side. That is, John Hare's photo matches John hare's entry. ResMar 22:23, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Right, I was just suggesting you exchange a few older recipients with a few recent ones for a little balance. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 23:29, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm not a big fan of the sort feature, in order to get it to work properly, sometimes you have to make cosmetic or other concessions. I think it would look better with each name within its own row, followed by hometowns in their own row, and having a single row for the year. We need some sort of separator between the names and hometowns in years when there was more than one recipient, it would look better.
I think I've arrived at a decent comprimise. How do you deal with having to write the same reason, for example, 4 times? ResMar 14:35, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
You could've used a multiple rowspan, but I think I have found a solution. Horizontal rules do not interfere with the sort feature and it still separates the multiple entries and makes it look nice and neat. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 16:13, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Very nice! Works well. ResMar 17:58, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Why are the current recipients "hometowns" listed as "Stanford University" and "Nuclear Threat Initiative"?
For the 2008 awards, it tells not of their hometown but of their afflications. What should the header be changed to?
I suggest a little research into the hometowns of the recipients. Otherwise, if this info in unavailable, then I would suggest a note of some kind indicating an affiliation with these institutions. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 23:29, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Hm, looking into their bios these towns seem to be where they worked/lived when they recieved the award; so it might change after. I decided to change "Hometown" to "Location" and add a note saying that this is their afflication. I think location embodies the universities as well, though not the Nuclear Threat Initiative. ResMar 14:34, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
"See also" sections are for related links which are not currently present within the article. From what I see, all of these links are already present, I suggest you delete this section.
As far as the gaps are concerned, I assumed the gaps were due to a lack of breakthroughs during those years. Also I have found this book, page 217-218, which seems to almost support my suspicion. It says "Though the prize was founded in 1796, it was not until forty three years after that the Academy, in 1839, found anyone who was in its judgment worthy of the award." Which also seems to contradict the introduction which states it was founded in 1839. Your source says it was "established" in 1839, but then it goes on to say that the fund was "created" in 1796. So I'm not sure what the big difference is. It also says the prize was founded with $5,000 not $1,000, and I am unable to locate the source of your statement. The citation given has no mention of $1,000. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 16:13, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Once again, I am proven my comical ineptitude to find stuff. I really should learn how to use Gbooks. Anyway, 1,000 was certainly a typo.ResMar 16:51, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Support All my concerns have been addressed. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 03:39, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Comment. It would be interesting if you could add some explanation on why there are gaps in the award (especially between 1996 and 2008). Eklipse (talk) 10:35, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
It would, wouldn't it? I wonder too. Alas, there's nothing the light of solid resourses on the award on the net; all the information I have is the paragraph describing it on the Academy page. ResMar 13:56, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
ErgoSum's found the answer; see above. ResMar 18:00, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Support - Other than the interesting find by ErgoSum (ResMar, read over the article before you send it to FAC/FLC), this meets the FL criteria. Good work. ceranthor 01:46, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
"Because the prize is awarded by the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, all of the recipients are American, except for one" Do you mean to say that the Academy specifically looks out for American recipients?
Yes. It is the American academy, after all. ResMar 21:02, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Please check your logical quotation; "for their efforts to reduce the global threat of nuclear weapons." should
I'm getting into these prize lists and it's great that we're developing a set of non-forked featured lists. So, to my comments.
I think that, since so many of the recipients have free use images, we should consider adding a column to the table with their image embedded, rather than the few you've selected which run down the right-hand side. It's a bit more work but the list would really benefit from it (in my opinion).
Actually I perfer the current format. That would make the table a lot longer and squeeze the table cells way longer then they aught to be. ResMar 18:36, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
"...is one of the oldest and most prestigious scientific prizes ..." is there any evidence to support these claims?
Well, its age for starters - 1798 was a long, LONG time back, and at the time America was a "new" country of only 20+ years. ResMar 18:21, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
I understand it's one of the oldest, but what makes it prestigious? What benefit does it bestow on its recipients for instance? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:30, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
A gold and silver medal and bragging rights :) ResMar 13:36, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
"The prize recognizes contributions by scientists to the fields of heat and light" and then "recognizes a signifigant acheivement to the fields of heat and light" - repetitive.
Well, this is really what happens when I modify the lead to include more information; in this case, when the award is given and why it is so sporatic. Fixed, hopefully. ResMar 18:29, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
"a total of " redundant.
Can you explain what you mean? It's only used once.ResMar 18:21, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
The words "a total of" are redundant in the sentence. You can remove them and the meaning will remain exactly the same. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:30, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
"Because the prize is awarded by the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, all of the recipients are American," can you cite this causal relationship between an American Academy and the winners? For instance, BAFTA is a British Academy but regularly awards non-British actors.
Yes, I beleive so. That's understandable, but look at the statistics; only one award was awarded to a non-USA resident, and even then they were from neighboring Canada. When Count Rumford awarded the grant for the prize, he simotaneously gave a second grant to the Royal Academy, which awards an award of the same specifications on an international level. (see Rumford Medal) ResMar 18:21, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
You need to cite this. You're saying that the reason all recipients (bar one) are US because the prize is given by a US organisation. I think this needs proof. I can see the recipients are, indeed, mainly from the US, but it could be because that's where most of the work in this area of science is conducted. Alternatively, you can remove this sentence which I believe is really just original research. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:30, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
This is from one of the PDFs dabomb sent me:
Fellows of the Royal Society may, however, not be aware that Count Rumford made at the same time an identical gift of $5ooo to the Honorable John Adams, President of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, to be devoted in the same manner to the authors of discoverie's in any part of the Continent of America, or in any of the American islands . . .
I will add it to the article shortly. ResMar 13:36, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
"List of recipients " and "List of prizes given by the academy " in general refs not needed.
What makes you say that? The table originally had a notes column, but it used almost exclusively one ref, so it was recommended to me to move it under a "General" subheading in the Refs, and later to remove the column altogethor. ResMar 18:21, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
The references are fine, it's the italicised text afterwards which is not required. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:30, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Several of the issues require information I don't have. There's next-to-nothing by way of information on the prize on the web, and I don't have access to print material (if there is any). So I am unable to address them. ResMar 18:21, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
I have JSTOR access. Is there anything in particular that you are looking for? Dabomb87 (talk) 19:41, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
According to Bulletin of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, Vol. 22, No. 3 (January 1969), pp. 8–9, it was the oldest science prize in America. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:48, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Hmm, lemmi see; information on the founding of the prize, why Samuel Pierpont Langley got both the prize and the Rumford Medal in the same year, why the Canadian John Stanley Plaskett got an award that is typically American...ResMar 19:56, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
I sent you an email; can you email me back so that I can email you material? Dabomb87 (talk) 20:19, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
There are a couple of references that I recommend be moved up to the notes section. They are refs 4, 5 and 6.
The references look good although 1 requires registration so most users will not be able to access it. Not sure if this is ok from a verfication point of view but wanted to mention it anyway.--Kumioko (talk) 15:20, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
is one of the oldest and most prestigious scientific prizes in the United States. - "most prestigious" needs a citation.
"authors of discoverie's in any part of the Continent of America, or in any of the American islands.", this needs a citation. If it is JSTOR, then put a citation directly after the quote, then reuse the citation again at the end of the sentence(s) being cited.
by which time the grant had increased to $30,000., that was in 1862. Is the grants still 5k or has it increased to match inflation and other factors?
In the lead Previous prizewinners include Thomas Alva Edison, for all the reasons that follow for the different winners are direct quotations and copies of the table quotations. If they are there they should have quotation marks, however I believe that you are really pushing your luck here. I think this list is on very shakey copyright grounds. Wikipedia:Non-free content#Text says "Extensive quotation of copyrighted text is prohibited", and would say this list does extensively use quotations.
Where is note [d]?
in fact I have a much more general concern about copyright infringement (see here). Basically for each entry you've copied from the Rumford page, e.g.
Charles Greeley Abbot, Washington, DC, for his research on solar radiation.
then just put | in between things to give
1915||Charles Greeley Abbot||Washington, DC||for his research on solar radiation.
Then wikilinked some terms and added a sortname coding. Basically you have copied the "creative presentation of text" and that is also copyrighted by the American Academy. Rambo's Revenge(talk) 17:11, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
My opinion here is that the chronological list of award recipients is not a problem, as this is straightforward fact. I do think that the quotation of text exceeds both WP:NFC and fair use, as it is extensively taking from the website. I acknowledge that it would be a right pain in the neck to use original language for the rationales, but I think we must. For example, perhaps the rationale of John Ericsson (1862) might be altered to read: "Although he was honored generally for improving heat management, Ericsson's 1858 developments to the caloric engine were specifically singled out." The real pain comes in with individuals live Carl Barus (1900). "for his research in heat." And that means what, exactly? I'd recommend rewriting what you can and saving the quotes for non-informative text like that. Alternatively, rather than quoting or using full statements, might you simplify the final column to something like "area of research"? Then for John Ericsson you might say Heat management (specifically, his 1858 developments to the caloric engine). Then for somebody vague like Carl Barus, you could give the one word note: Heat. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 18:41, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Given that this may have wider implications than this single list, I believe I'll seek additional feedback at WT:NFC and a copyright page or two. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 18:46, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
This is a tough one. First, you can't copyright facts, so such-and-such winning of so-and-so in year YYYY is both factual and necessary. So the question is down to the reasoning and this is where I think that the language has to be changed - that rationale for the winner is the creative part of the Acadamy's input to this, and restating out of the web page is excessive. Now, for 90% of those, they could simply fixed by citing just the field of work, eg for the 1996 award, just say "cosmic microwaves" with appropriate linkage; for more complex ones, just put in lists (eg 1973: "symmetry in polyatomic molecules, microwave spectroscopy") That's the easiest way to avoid the issue while still keeping key information in the list. --MASEM (t) 19:35, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
I think that's a fair compromise to get on with things. In the meantime, it's still a useful exercise to determine a guideline on what constitutes too much direct quotation. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:43, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
I'd suggest that when the quote is the actual citation for the award, that should be considered factual. Secondly, it is (probably) too short an element of text to be considered a substantial taking. The "original work" in this case (I think) is each individual citation, taken separately; rather than any subsequent compilation of them (unless it appears that we have selected from the original citations in the same way as the compilation).
So, I don't see a need for any changes. Jheald (talk) 14:02, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
If the text being pulled was only being used to describe the honor of the award for one of the winners on their article page, sure, it's likely short enough that a cite avoids any issue. Using them all is a problem. As there's a way to replace the potentially-creative reasoning for granting the award with free use text (simply citing the field(s) it was won for, and not the whole quote) it avoids any possible copyright issues. --MASEM (t) 14:13, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure you're seeing my point. If those are simply the original citations, we're making a lot of small quotations from different original works, not an extended quotation from one work.
Secondly, IMO the formal citation should be seen as part of the facts of the award, which I think we should be at liberty to report verbatim, as facts. Jheald (talk) 14:22, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree that the individual statements of reason are likely compiled from other source documents that the awards body generated when granting the award, and their list is only a summation of those. However, our WP article only cites one additional source in addition to the list in the body of the list (that for the most recent award); if it instead cited each individual document, I'd be less concerned because as it is, it smells and acts like a copyright issue. But this is centered around the question of whether the reasoning that the award was given is a non-copyrightable fact or not (if its the former, then there's no question that the table, overall, is not copyrightable like a phone book, and inclusion in the list article here is fine). My concern is that those statements of reason are opinions of why this person was recognized, and thus, even if they are short snippets, are still copyrighted. This is certain far from outright copyright violations, but it is not in the clear. Which is why a cautious approach, including only the fields that were listed for the reasoning of each award, is a safer option than wholesale copyright. But again, I point out that if each of the quotes in the table as they are now were actually sourced to the documents that announced the winner, I'd see less a problem with that. --MASEM (t) 15:08, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
I know I'm going with the minority here, but I do not think this is not a copyright infringment. The descriptions given are the original citations given by the Academy. Although I can certainly modify it to the fields of work, it wouldn't be the same. To Masem, this article has gone through so many changes and shifts, but at the point of nomination it did in fact have a citation for each year, person, and date, in a Notes column. It was seen as too bulky, so the notes was removed and replaced with a single citation under General. Then the column itself was removed as it seemed too big for the few scattered notes within.
This kind of sucks to tell you the truth, I started this as a side project playing second fiddle to Loihi, but it's made the bottom of the list...my first FLC made the bottom of the list...now that's an acomplishment. ResMar 03:42, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
"There is no implication of literary merit, but the work must be of a minimum length. This means that single words or a single sentence do not have copyright (for advertising - words, logos and sentences are ‘trademarked’). Also individual facts do not get copyright, e.g. address details, telephone numbers. This is a common sense approach in that although individual facts do not acquire copyright, collections of such facts do acquire protection".
"Copyright protection under the copyright code (title 17, section 102, U. S. Code) extends only to “original works of authorship.” The statute states clearly that ideas and concepts cannot be protected by copyright. To be protected by copyright, a work must contain at least a certain minimum amount of authorship in the form of original literary, musical, pictorial, or graphic expression. Names, titles, and other short phrases do not meet these requirements."
It would seem the US and the UK have differing opinions on this, I dunno, I'm no copyright lawyer. But I have serious doubts about any "infringement" upon copyrighted material. This is a collection of facts, and no real authorship went into the original list. Having said that, I do believe the proposed changes would actually improve the article, so I can't say I'm against them. I think a less vague explanation of why these people received the medal would be an improvement. Although I'm not sure "Towards his concern" is better than what was there before. I also think anything would be better than reading "For his" ninety times. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 04:29, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.