Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Ferrier Lecture/archive1

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 not promoted by Matthewedwards 08:08, 18 July 2009 [1].

Ferrier Lecture edit

Nominator(s): Ironholds (talk) 23:15, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Featured list candidates/Ferrier Lecture/archive1

Another medal from moi. Disclaimer: this is being submitted as part of the Amazing Race. Ironholds (talk) 23:15, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
- References: refs 3, 5, and 8 have issues, and as for the bullet pointed "specific" references after 15, I'm not sure what's going on there at all...! The last 8 "specific" references appear to be general (because they're not specifically used anywhere in the list?). You also need to watch out for pp. (single page number) and also different date formats there in the refs. And all web links should have accessdates (e.g. ref 11)
  - Fixed problems with the bullets. Not sure about your pp point - do you mean it should or should not be used for single page numbers? Dates should have been standardised, weblinks have accessdates. Ironholds (talk) 21:18, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yeah, often people use pages= instead of page= for a single page reference. The former gives you pp. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:20, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Ahh, gotcha. Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 10:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Where is the lecture given?
  - No idea, sorry :(. None of the sources I can find give a location. Ironholds (talk) 21:18, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - From the first page of a Google search: This indicates it is delivered to the Royal Society, and then at a second venue of the lecturers choosing. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 14:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I would have thought we should be using Brit-Eng on this, so honour, not honor, etc.
  - Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 21:18, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Tessier-Lavigne is not linked in the lead but is linked in the table.
  - Links in the table are mandatory, but I felt that adding a redlink to the lead made it needlessly ugly. If you disagree, I'll change it. Ironholds (talk) 21:18, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I would make sure the lecturer's name col doesn't wrap around otherwise it could look as if there's more than one lecturer for a given year.
  - Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 21:18, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Um, no it hasn't been. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 14:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - It has in my screen. Obviously it'll be different in different resolutions. What sizing are you using? Ironholds (talk) 15:52, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        1400x1050. I assume that this is the fix you attempted. I think removing forced widths and using {{Nowrap}} should work. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:19, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Rambling Man (talk) 20:09, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Truco (talk · contribs)

General

Dabs, external links check out fine.

Lead

In 1971 the lecture was given by two individuals (David Hunter Hubel and Torsten Nils Wiesel) on the same topic, with the title "The function and architecture of the visual cortex". -- Comma after 1971

Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 01:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know you said that you can't find in sources where these are held, but it really leaves a gap in this list because it leaves the reader [like me] in confusion because we don't where its held. There has to be some source out there, hopefully?

As you will know by now from previous submissions, information on the Royal Society medals/awards/lectures is very hard to come by, with the official pages serving as the only decent source. As of yet I've been unable to find anything reliable elsewhere. Ironholds (talk) 01:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, someone found some below...--Tru co ₅₀₃ 02:07, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing those sources below don't have locations, correct?--Tru co ₅₀₃ 15:27, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why are quotation marks and italics being used for the titles, is that how the Royal Society officially titles the titles? [same thing for the ones in the list]

Just something I saw in other lists. Really they're the titles of essays and academic works, since the things were published, so they should be italicised in the same way that book titles would be. Quotation marks are commonly used in many lists like this, several of which you signed off on. Ironholds (talk) 01:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was just a question, no need for the hostility.--Tru co ₅₀₃ 02:07, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise - I honestly didn't intend for it to come out in a hostile manner. Ironholds (talk) 16:28, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References

The link to the Royal Society should be in the general ref instead of the specific one.--Tru co ₅₀₃ 00:37, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done.

Oppose from Rambo's Revenge (talk · contribs)

I'm sure you can find missing references if I could find them easily on Google you haven't looked hard enough. 19351950, 1986 all found within a minute of searching makes me think every one could have refs.
- Actually on further investigation I think it might be possible to use the JSTOR front page of every lecture 19321935193819831986 - I think searching this with Ferrier Lecture and clicking on "Electronic Refereed Journal Article (HTML)" will give you most if not all.
  - P.S. I have access to JSTOR; if you need anything, holler. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:54, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The lead seems a bit short, I suggest adding
- How the winner is selected? Also is this based on set criterion?
  - No idea. I know they're selected by the B-sides awards committee, but not if there are set criterion or what those criterion might be. Ironholds (talk) 16:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally this also states that the 1950 lecture was delivered to the Royal Society at Burlington House, Piccadilly, London, on Wednesday June 29 at 4.30 p.m. 2007 was also in June but 2004 was delivered in November, 1986 delivered in April in London. All the JSOR links I gave, and the other ones you can find will give places and dates. This leads me to two questions:
1. Is the lecture always delivered first in London (where Royal Society is based), I suspect it is, can you ref this.
2. What is the timeline. When is the winner announced? Dates of lectures seem to vary from April to November, has a lecture ever been delivered the following year, for example.

Rambo's Revenge (talk) 14:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No idea as to the answer to the second question. I would say that they're probably all given at the RS headquarters (headquarters in 1950 was burlington house, headquarters currently is Carlton House, so on) but I can't find a ref specifically saying that. Really any conclusions drawn would be synthy OR. Ironholds (talk) 17:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay but there are things you could add to the lead if you look. For example the lecture open to the public,[2], actually on further investigation Royal Society Publishing allows you to read the full content of some of the lectures here. This should give more information about times/places and if you can find this for every lecture then it is no longer OR. :) Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:21, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ~~per the discussion at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Rumford Prize/archive1, this list may be excessively using copyrighted text.~~ Dabomb87 (talk) 21:23, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually in this case I disagree with you. The "copyrighted text" you speak of are the titles of the lecture publications, and these are fact. Well almost (because I found one I think is wrong). According to the 1938 lecture itself the title was The Localization of Activity in the Brain not "Some problems of localization in the central nervous system". The others need checking. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:51, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Nevertheless Ironholds, this is something you need to address in your Royal Society medal lists. Also, why are only the first words of the lecture names capitalized? Dabomb87 (talk) 23:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because they were capitalised on the RS website - we've done this discussion to death on other list FLs. Why do I have to address this? You address problems, and I'm not seeing one. If there's no problem with this list there shouldn't be any problem with the others. US copyright law allows the fair use of quotations if they're used to aid the understanding of the article and don't comprise a substantial portion of the work. Now, these are being used to aid understanding, are in quotation marks and are fully attributed. The same is true on all my lists. So where is the problem, exactly? Ironholds (talk) 06:38, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I agree with Dabomb here. We have the official lecture typescripts on JSTOR and the Royal Society's page. It seems commons sense that the official typescript is right, as the RS will just be copying that, hence you'd put "The Actions of Parasympathetic and Sympathetic Nerves in Human Micturition, Erection and Seminal Emission, and their Restoration in Paraplegic Patients by Implanted Electrical Stimulators" instead of The actions of parasympathetic and sympathetic nerves in human micturition, erection and seminal emission, and their restoration in paraplegic patients by implanted electrical stimulators per it's typescript. As for the copyright, Dabomb has retracted his comment on this FL, however other medal lists may have a problem because, for example, in Gabor Medal the quotations do make up a substantial portion of the work. He's just giving you a heads up that the copyright discussions will be worth keeping an eye on. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 10:08, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to all points raised above: I'll be dealing with them this evening. Sorry for the delay, I've been having some RL problems that have somewhat cut into my time. Ironholds (talk) 06:40, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment just to remind us all, we need to consider Wikipedia:ACCESS#Resolution, which says we should consider 800px width as being the lowest supported resolution. In other words, if the list looks okay at 800x600, you're in the clear... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:24, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.