Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Nobel Prize/archive3

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 Karanacs 15:50, 2 July 2010 [1].

Nobel Prize edit

Nobel Prize (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Esuzu (talk • contribs) 18:35, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can not stress enough how important the Nobel Prize article is, there are thousands of articles linking to it and several readers every day. That is why I decided to bring it to FA status (perhaps a bad idea as my first one since it is a rather controversial topic). The last two nominations failed but since then it has gone through several copy-edits and a peer-review and I now think it is ready for FA status. Most images were reviewed in last nomination and I do not think any images has been added or changed since then. With your help I hope we can make it even better. Thank you, Esuzu (talk • contribs) 18:35, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment—no dab links; no dead external links. Ucucha 20:01, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Esuzu (talk • contribs) 20:39, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Yes, Krugman's Nobel had some people arguing that it was left-wing bias but the reference given does not support this. Moreover, that should be distinguished from the accusations around the Peace Prize since they're awarded by completely independent committees. In any case, the rumblings in Krugman's case where marginal and given the astounding number of Chicago school of economics laureates, the most common complaint for the economics prize is precisely the opposite. So the sentence about left-wing bias cries for Krugman should be removed to avoid undue weight. Pichpich (talk) 13:52, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Removed part about Krugman. Thank you for your comment, Esuzu (talk • contribs) 14:29, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support - my concerns have been adequately addressed, and I feel that the article, though imperfect, now warrants support. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:13, 18 June 2010 (UTC) Comments - I completely agree with you about this article's importance, but I can't support it until some of the below concerns are addressed. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:05, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Nikkimaria! Your comments have really helped in the development of this article! Esuzu (talk • contribs) 15:40, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per MoS, section headings should avoid repeating the article title
I am aware, the only heading I can find is the "Nobel Prize during World War II" and naming it "During World War II" feels kind of awkward don't you think?
Why not just "World War II"?
That would work I guess. It got changed.
  • First sentence is slightly unclear - do you mean that the awards are bestowed for cultural and scientific advances, or is it bestowed by "committees for cultural and scientific advances"?
The latter. It is bestowed by by "committees for cultural and scientific advances."
Okay...I'm missing something, then. Can you reword the first sentence slightly?
I am sorry but I feel it is quite clear already. I asked some other people and they seem to agree with me. I am not sure how to rephrase it but I would welcome a suggestion.
I've had a go at re-wording it. Is this an improvement? MartinPoulter (talk) 16:15, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Much better, thanks!
  • Avoid one- and two-sentence paragraphs
Those are introductory paragraphs, although I know they are not optimal I am not sure how I could change it. Do you have any suggestion?
Some of the paragraphs are acceptable, though not optimal; others could be expanded, incorporated into other paragraphs, or removed wholesale where they repeat information in your "main" text
Fixed most of them. I did not remove the "The award process is sim..." in the "Award Process" section. Is that acceptable to have there alone or should I just place it under "Nominations"?
That's probably fine...however, what about the two short paragraphs in the lead?
I will expand them with more information. Especially the second paragraph in the lead could perhaps use more information.
MartinPoulter merged it. (Thank you) The lead is rather short but I feel it mentions the most important parts. Is it all right now or should I expand it? Esuzu (talk • contribs) 14:49, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say that's just fine now, thanks
  • Don't stack images, especially ones that aren't the same width
Please specify which. Is it the "Recent laureates" images?
I was looking at "History"
Re-arranged slightly. Better now?
  • You've included some run-on sentences that should be broken up. For example: "Nobel wrote several wills during his lifetime, the last was written over a year before he died, and signed at the Swedish-Norwegian Club in Paris on 27 November 1895"
Fixed the example you have given. Could you please specify the others?
Other examples:
  • In 1939 the Peace Prize was not awarded and 1940–42 no prize was awarded in any category, due to the occupation of Norway by Germany from 9 April 1940
Fixed.
  • The remaining members escaped persecution from the Nazis due to the Nobel Foundation stating that the Committee building in Oslo was Swedish property and thus a safe haven from the German Military which was not at war with Sweden
Fixed.
  • The article text does not discuss (or even mention, except in passing under "Controversies") the first awards in 1901 - seems like a prominent omission
I could write a new section in the History part called "The first prizes" or something. I will try to get to it as soon as possible.
Update: This section is nearly done. I hope to add it to the article tomorrow. Esuzu (talk • contribs) 16:16, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is created now. "First prizes".
Thanks very much! However, the section could use some copy-editing, and additional citations would be helpful
Copy-editing is nearly finished I think. Some things have been clarified etc. I provided an additional citation and think it should be enough now. They are good and reliable references. Esuzu (talk • contribs) 19:33, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some general copy-editing needed - typos, grammatical errors - no blatant problems, but certainly not brilliant prose
I will check it through again. Although I am not good at checking what I have written myself, I tend to stare myself blind on it aand not notice anything. If you find any problems while viewing the article I would be grateful if you could either list them here or fix them.
  • What is the correct name for the Economics prize? Is the correct order Medicine or Physiology, or Physiology or Medicine?
The correct name is Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel. But it is quite long and normally (even by the Nobel Prize page etc) referred to as the Economics Prize.
Now standardised on "Physiology or Medicine", the term used by the Nobelprize.org site. MartinPoulter (talk) 16:15, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you MartinPoulter! Esuzu (talk • contribs) 16:44, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Elinor was the first woman to receive the Economics Prize - citation? Also, why is she being referred to by her first name?
Fixed.
  • Fix date for Szostak image
Done.
  • Is the banquet three courses or five?
The one in Stockholm is three and the one in Oslo is five.
You might specify that to avoid confusion
Isn't? I mean "After the award ceremony in Sweden a banquet at the Stockholm City Hall is attended by the Swedish Royal Family and around 1,300 guests. The banquet features a three-course dinner..." is quite clear that it is the Swedish banquet while "At the Nobel Peace Prize banquet the 250 guests, including the laureate and the King and Queen of Norway, are treated to a five-course meal." is quite clear that it is in Norway. I could change it to "Nobel Peace Prize banquet in Norway" would that help?
Yes, or you could move some of the information that appears only in the image caption into the main article text
Done, added it to the main text.
  • Author link for the image of Haber's diploma is broken
Fixed.
  • "Past winners of the Peace Prize were divided, some saying that Obama deserved the award, and others saying he had not yet earned it" - source?
Ref 110. [2]
  • Check licensing for Gandhi image - by my calculations, it could not have been PD in India in 1996, and therefore could not now be PD-US according to the current tag
Your calculations seems correct. Does "ie. as of 2010, works published prior to 1 January 1950 are considered public domain" help or does it needs replacing?
That means it is currently PD in India, but not necessarily in the US (at least not according to the US tag currently present), and since WP is based in Florida it must adhere to US licensing requirements (at least that's my understanding, although I'm no image expert)
It is now discussed in a Deletion review. But we probably won't be able to use it. I will try to replace it with another image.
Replaced!
  • The reference in the footnote should be in the same format as the ones in Notes
Done.
  • Ref 6: what is AFP?
What I can understand it is the author. Reformatted the ref.
You don't happen to know what it stands for?
To my knowledge it is Agence France-Presse. At least in Swedish newspapers it is common to just state that instead of an author in a short article. Should I just leave it out or keep it?
You could pipe it, would that work?
Sorry, now I feel a bit stupid but to my knowledge "pipe it" means something like "shut up". I am afraid I do not know what it means here. Could you please rephrase it?
In wiki-context, it means to link it internally while maintaining the abbreviation by writing [[Agence France-Presse|AFP]], which appears as AFP. See WP:PIPE
Oh, thank you for teaching me that! Might be useful. The piping is done.
  • Don't link the same term more than once or twice
I can not find any linked more than once (or in some cases twice). Could you be more specific?
Just from a quick glance, the Peace Prize is linked twice in the lead along, the Nobel Foundation is linked multiple times...there are several repeated links, too many to list here
I will look it through again. Meanwhile, the Nobel Foundation is only linked once in the text now. It is however linked several times in the references but that is as it should be right?
I have looked it through again and I think I found all that. If there are others please specify. I know there are a lot of wikilinks to the Nobel Foundation but that is in references. Esuzu (talk • contribs) 19:26, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 60: author?
It is only a interview and thus no really author as such. Should I use the one who conducted the interview? (Holger Breithaupt)
Yes. The current "author" (USA?) makes no sense as such
Fixed.
  • Ref 70: check formatting
Reformatted.
  • Be consistent in whether you put a period after an initial in references or not, and whether publisher is italicized or not (why is CBC italicized while Local is not, for example? Why is the Washington Post italicized sometimes but not always?)
I think I found the problem, it depends on if it is the publisher or the "work" it was published in. Should be done now. If there are any left please let me know.
I've done a cleanup of the period issue and it seems to me that consistency is now achieved. MartinPoulter (talk) 21:55, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 91: make date format consistent with other refs
Done.
  • Be consistent in multiple-author formatting - for example, compare refs 29 and 106
Fixed the example and the others I can find. If I missed any please let me know.
I've got rid of all "et al."'s and cite-formatted the coauthor names. MartinPoulter (talk) 21:31, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refs 109, 110, 115, 116, 117: date formatting
Done.
  • Articles sourced to timesonline.co.uk: pick formatting - you've got both The Times and Times.
I hope this is fixed now.
Yes, but either list location for these or not
From on now location is consistently not used.
  • Ref 120: author should be listed last name first
It is, Levinovitz is the last name.
Um, no...Ref 120 is listed under "Elizabeth Day"
Done.
  • Ref 124: missing citation details
Reformatted, ok now?
No, details still missing
Must have looked at the wrong again. Fixed it now.
  • Refs 125, 128, 135: date formatting
Done. Formatted some other I could find as well.
  • What makes Ref 126 a reliable source? Also, author should be listed last name first
Last name is already listed first, Kirsch is the last name. Not sure what you mean, there should be no problem with a an article from Slate, it is published by The Washington Post Company which for me is a rather serious company. Also the writer Adam Kirsch seem very reliable to me.
Are you maybe looking at the wrong ref? Ref 126 is by "Marjorie Kehe"
I certainly was. Removed Kehe ref. The Slate reference covers the statement.
  • Ref 140: formatting
Done.
No, not done. Referencing format should be the same as the other refs
Oh sorry, must have looked at the wrong ref. Fixed now I believe.
  • Ref 141: write out full publisher name
Fixed.
  • If you're going to include access dates for weblinks to print-based sources, you must do so for all of them
Felt stupid to include now that you mention it. Removed it.
  • If you're including location for some, it must be included for all books. However, you don't need full addresses
Decided not to include it. Removed those who had it.
  • Be consistent in formatting edition listings
Decided not to include it.
Editions actually do need to be included, because page numbers (among other things) can change between editions
Ehm well that makes kind of sense now that you say so... :) Changed.
Okay, but a typo ("Thrid"). Also, if the listed edition is the only edition in existence, you don't need to say "First"
Oh. Thank you, fixed now I hope.
It is just that I haven't specified it enough. Currently only "However, when the award was announced hostilities still occurred." is on the page. I will specify, thank you for noticing.
About Arafat: I could, of course, add it to the page. But please note that I could spend eternity adding controversies to the Nobel Prize article; there is another article for the controversies (Nobel Prize controversies). There is only so much that can be on the main page. But if you feel it has to be there I will gladly add it. Esuzu (talk • contribs) 08:24, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes please. I know there are heaps of controversies but the Peace Prize is always the focus of attention. I can't think of any that created even 10% the protest as the nonsensical VN War and Arafat awards. YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 06:19, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The important difference is that these two (+ the one to Sadat and Ben Gurion) were criticized because recipients were viewed as warmongers or at least people who had definitely advocated against peace at some point. From what I know, other controversies over the Peace Prize are concerned with people whose accomplishments for peace were either thought to be non-existent (Obama) or unrelated to peace (climate prize). I think the former criticism is much more important and more subtle. It definitely should be there in detail. Pichpich (talk) 18:40, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Added a paragraph about the award to Arafat etc (If you feel I left something out please tell me here or be bold).Esuzu (talk • contribs) 22:10, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pichpich: the Obama prize is already there in detail. I could mention Al Gore as well if you feel it has to be here. Esuzu (talk • contribs) 22:10, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The sentence Ahnlund resigned, alleging that selecting Jelinek had caused "irreparable damage" to the reputation of the award. is incorrect. This is not what Ahnlund said and the sentence also fails to explain what Ahnlund found objectionable about Jelinek's work. This is something I just spotted at random and I'm tempted to oppose promotion because it shows that references have not been verified to match the content. I also think that the article should be copy-edited to improve the prose. Pichpich (talk) 18:48, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I appriciate your comments Pichpich, but I doubt opposing would help; I will fix all problems noted here. I will take a closer look later today to ensure it is correct. I will leave a note here as soon as it is done. Esuzu (talk • contribs) 19:14, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have corrected the quote. Well spotted. I hope that part is to your satisfaction now? Esuzu (talk • contribs) 19:47, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note - If possible, be specific when complaining on the prose/grammar/syntax as I am not a native speaker and thus not an expert. Even better would be to fix the problems you see. Thank you. Esuzu
OK, I have edited the article in an effort to correct some of the remaining glitches. [3] Graham Colm (talk) 13:47, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much GrahamColm! Much appriciated :) Esuzu (talk • contribs) 16:45, 21 June 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Nobel_Prize/archive3&oldid=1207935556"