|
Comments from Truco (talk · contribs)
- Lead
- Awarded every year, the medal is the oldest Royal Society medal still in use, having first been awarded in 1731 to Stephen Gray, who won his for "his new Electrical Experiments: - as an encouragement to him for the readiness he has always shown in obliging the Society with his discoveries and improvements in this part of Natural Knowledge" | who won his it would be better worded as 'who received his'
- The Medal was created following a donation of £100 to be used for carrying out experiments by Sir Godgery Copley, something which the interest on the amount was used for for several years. | Remove extra for
- Since the medal was created it has been awarded to a number of notable scientists, including 52 winners of various Nobel Prizes; 17 winners of the Nobel Prize in Physics, 21 winners of the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine and 14 winners of the Nobel Prize in Chemistry, including Frederick Sanger who won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry twice in 1958 and 1980 and was awarded the Copley Medal in 1977 "In recognition of his distinguished work on the chemical structure of proteins and his studies on the sequences of nucleic acids". | (1)Reword the beginning to 'Since its creation, the medal has been awarded...' (2)This sentence needs to be split, it makes up more than 80% of the last paragraph.
- There is no mention of the most recent winner in the lead.
- Recipients
- Rudolph Peierls doesn't sort correctly alphabetically.
- Entries that don't have a reference, what is verifying the rationale and the receiving of the award?
- I'll try and be civil and polite here: they would be verified by the big "general reference" at the bottom. The process of instituting third party sources in a notes column for this sort of list was instituted at your request here where you also said quote "You don't necessarily have to find it for all of them, just some, at least to have diversity, and the ones that you can't find will be fine sourced with the general reference". My apologies if it is too much to expect a user to remember what changes they instigated. Ironholds (talk) 15:15, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well then. I do remember that, however, I didn't think the general reference would be doing that since I didn't click on them. Something is wrong with the formatting, the general references should be that large, they should be like it is here.--<TRUCO> 503 15:17, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You remember saying the general references would be fine but thought that rather than clicking on the general references here (which are named in exactly the same format as those at the Rumford Medal) it would be better to add a pointless thing to the list of corrections? Sizing error fixed.Ironholds (talk) 15:20, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well excuse me. I'm just trying to help, you don't have to go on a frenzy on me just for forgetting a minor thing.--<TRUCO> 503 15:30, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- My apologies, I went a bit OTT; when at the urging of a reviewer you have found 156 third-party sources for something and are then told you need more things tend to get a bit.. heated. Ironholds (talk) 15:35, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- References
- Make it into one or two columns because {{ref}} states that not all browsers have the ability to see it in 3 columns.
- Ref #4, the publisher is not nobelprize.org its the 'Nobel Foundation': make that for all references from this source.
- Some of the Universities should be linked because I see other that are linked, so either add links or remove them for consistency purposes.
- Ref #76 should be cited with {{cite book}} not {{cite web}}
- How reliable is nobel-winners.com? Its not affiliated with the Nobel Foundation, which makes its reliability questionable.<TRUCO> 503 15:02, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- All but the last three points are done; the third I'm working on finding an alternate source, the first two: 1) can you give an idea of which universities are not linked, and 2) #76 is a website. Ironholds (talk) 15:51, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- (1)Never mind, I thought you were linking each one in every occurrence, but you just linked it on its first occurrence. (2)Yes, but its on a book. Cite book does the same thing, place the URL where it is required and fill in the according information.--<TRUCO> 503 16:04, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No, 76 is definitely not a book. 73 is, if that is the one you mean? Ironholds (talk) 16:26, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- My bad. I meant 77.--<TRUCO> 503 19:12, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Followup comments
- The statement about the most recent winner should state the year to define what recently means.
- Why does the last sentence in the lead state Sir Roger and not by the person's last name? Just seems odd to me.--<TRUCO> 503 00:24, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
-
- I've done the first one; as for the second I have no idea; unless you think I this guy on speed dial I'm not sure what you want me to do about it. Ironholds (talk) 01:10, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- List the Roger guy by his last name.--TRUCO 02:19, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
-
- I'm sorry, I didn't see that was a part of the quote.TRUCO 02:30, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
