Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Indian Nobel laureates/archive2

< Wikipedia:Featured list candidates
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 PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 31 January 2019 (UTC) [1].[reply]

List of Indian Nobel laureates edit

List of Indian Nobel laureates (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): The Herald (Benison) (talk) 08:02, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because since the past nom some three years ago, the article have undergone a significant amount of changes and additions. The problems raised in the previous nomination were sorted out and therefore changes were incorporated into the article. Thank you. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 08:02, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
  • These links should be fixed.
  • You need to mention somewhere in the first para that the awards are given by the Swedish and Norwegian institutions.
  • Make sure all the images have alt text.
  • Most of the links are not properly formatted. Provide the title and the publisher.
Not done. Yashthepunisher (talk) 14:49, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Publisher added in all links and access date updated. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:05, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Geir Lundestad quote on Gandhi seems redundant to me. You can simplify in a sentence.

Yashthepunisher (talk) 12:29, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Yashthepunisher: Done. Alt texts for the table entries were kept as such but !scope is used in the table to provide blue links to the corresponding articles. Also I've added empty alt fields per MOS. Thanks The Herald (Benison) (talk) 14:45, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from BeatlesLedTV
  • All tables need scope rows and scope cols. You're good on scope rows in the first table
  • I think the lead image of Tagore should be replaced with a regular infobox but that's just my opinion. You can wait to see what other editors say about it.
  • All images need alt text
  • Care if I center the year column?
  • Use plainrowheaders in the tables
  • If it was jointly awarded to Malala in 2014 shouldn't she be in the table?
  • Quick correction, I meant shouldn't her image be in the table together with Satyarthi? BeatlesLedTV (talk) 20:07, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That would again be redundant since the article is specifically about Indians. Her name in the brackets would serve better than to add an entire image, IMO. It would be like blue sea, instead of links, its pictures...The Herald (Benison) (talk) 20:15, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh I see now and because she's not Indian. My bad, all good. :-) BeatlesLedTV (talk) 20:21, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead: "Committee.They" – space
  • Lead: 5 and 7 should be spelled out per MOS:NUMS
  • Ref 4 & 15 doesn't have the correct dating style

Looks good. Great job on this! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 00:13, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@BeatlesLedTV: All done save infobox. Per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE, the purpose of an infobox is "to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article (an article should remain complete with its summary infobox ignored). The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance." To add one into a list article like this where already all the information is pretty much summed up as three tables (each containing only their Nobel Prize subject, rationale and year) would be superfluous, IMO. Thanks for the review.. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 07:17, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah as I was writing my comments I realized an infobox really isn't needed in this type of list since it's just listing Indians who have won the Nobel Prize, not the Nobel Prize itself. Anyways, looks much better, happy to support. Great job! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 20:06, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 15:13, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:

Quite a few here, but most of them should be relatively minor.

  1. Don't place Nobel Prize and Indians in boldface, per MOS:BOLDAVOID.
  2. I don't think the Swedish and the Norwegian translations are that useful here – if any, the Hindi translation should be given.
  3. "laureate" should be instead formatted in italics and without quotation marks.
  4. the Swedish Academy grants the Nobel Prize in Literature; and the Nobel Peace Prize is awarded by the Norwegian Nobel Committee: it would be better if this were reworded to "… awards the Nobel Prize in …", in parallel with the two preceding phrases.
  5. honors should be "honours" (British/Indian English spelling).
  6. Include an {{As of}} template to the beginning of the second paragraph (before the total number of laureates), indicating the year to which this data is valid (e.g. {{As of|2018}}).
  7. The total number of laureates need to be referenced.
  8. Explain briefly why Sri Aurobindo is "notable", considering that he isn't even in the list.
  9. 1937–39 doesn't count as one nomination; the Nobel Prize website clearly indicates that Gandhi was nominated five times.
  10. Link Geir Lundestad.
  11. Secretary of Norwegian Nobel Committee: missing "the".
  12. "The greatest omission in our 106 year history": "The" doesn't need to be capitalised (see MOS:CONFORM) and there should ideally be a hyphen between "106 year" (although it mightn't be in the original source).
  13. Refs 7 and 9 are identical.
  14. Note A: "The" in The Passports Act probably shouldn't be capitalised, unless that's how it's spelled officially. The word "article" should be capitalised, "the" should be added before Indian Constitution, which should be linked and jus sanguinis doesn't need to be preceded by "the". This note could also be moved to the end of the sentence.
  15. Subject in all table headers should instead read "Field".
  16. The Rationale column should be limited to just that – other extraneous comments or words (e.g. other laureates with whom the prize was shared) should be explained in footnotes. (Awarded in Tagore's rationale should also be removed.)
  17. It would be desirable if there were a separate column at the end of each row for references, which currently occupy the Rationale column.
  18. It would possibly be better if notes made under laureates' names (e.g. for Mother Teresa) were instead formatted with footnotes.
  19. Amartya Sen: Economic studies should be "Economic Sciences".
  20. those foreigners who were born in India: omit "those".
  21. List of Indians in the See also section should be changed to avoid a redirect.
  22. If possible, you should link e.g. Nobel Foundation in the refs.

Otherwise, the list's quite good as it is. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 12:27, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ravenpuff, thank you for the review. I've done almost all the points. The Passports Act is spelled as such in caps officially and hence kept as such. Per WP:CHALLENGE, inline citation should be used to "any material whose verifiability is challenged or likely to be challenged to a reliable, published source using an inline citation", but the total number of laureates listed directly below in a table (which is also serial numbered) is not something to verified using and inline cite, IMO (like WP:BLUE). For the number of winners, I could find this page but highly doubt its verifiability as much of the information points it to be a tertiary source derived from Wikipedia itself. Adding a Hindi translation seemed too superflous for me and hence avoided it. Thanks. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 13:54, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What I meant by "total number of laureates" was in regard to a total of 835 individuals (791 men and 44 women) and 21 organizations, to which a reference should be added, for example, to the Nobel Prize website. Reference in the table headers could be shortened to "Ref." (with an {{Abbr}} template). I think that Aurobindo's significance should also be expounded more: why is he notable in his own right to merit a mention, even though there are certainly more Indians who were nominated but never received the Prize? Otherwise, it seems to be outside the scope of this list. Comment no. 21 also doesn't seem to have been acted on. Moreover, the remaining comments on places of birth in the Overseas citizens of Indian origin and Other sections should also be hidden in footnotes, as above. An alternative to this could be to add another column in the table for such data, keeping it out of the column for laureates' names. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 08:12, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
All done. Comment 21 was piped yesterday itself. Another cite from Nobel nomination archive was added on to Ghosh. Comments on the places of birth were moved into country field rather than a footnote to aid in readability. Thank you. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 11:39, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Seems reasonable. I've also performed few minor cosmetic edits in the lead, to tidy things up a bit. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 15:13, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support; comments resolved. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 15:13, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Vensatry

  • It's worth mentioning the year in which the prize was instituted/first awarded.
  • "The Nobel Prize is a set of annual international awards bestowed on "those who conferred the greatest benefit on humankind" in the fields of Physics, Chemistry, Physiology or Medicine, Literature, Peace and Economic Sciences.[1][2], instituted by Alfred Nobel's last will, which specified that part of his fortune be used to create a series of prizes." - A punctuation error after Economic Sciences?
  • This is still unclear. The latter half of the sentence doesn't follow from the first part. —Vensatry (talk) 20:12, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "some more than once." - Seems like a comma splice error.
  • "... the only woman among the list" -> the only woman among the list of recipients/laureates
  • Any reason for highlighting Sri Aurobindo's nomination(s) before Mahatma Gandhi's? We usually follow chronological ordering in these lists.
  • "... in 1937–39" - This should either be "in 1937, 1938, 1939 ..." or "from 1937 to 1939".
  • Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi -> Mahatma Gandhi per WP:COMMONNAME
  • "In 2006, Geir Lundestad, the Secretary of Norwegian Nobel Committee, cited it as "the greatest omission in our 106-year history" - The first ref. doesn't have the quote. The second one (book) seems to be first published in 2001 - five years before Lundestad made the claim.
  • "first Asian to be awarded with the Nobel Prize" - The claim is not sourced.
  • One-line descriptions (of tables) are often discouraged. It's better to use them as captions.
  • Use plainrowheaders in tables.
  • This one is a suggestion - you could include the life spans of the recipients in the table (preferably under each of the names).
  • What makes history.com a reliable source?
  • Correct the publisher parameter (you've used the author name) for ref#6.
  • Include the names of the books in refs #8 and #10. [2] and [3].
  • Add "publisher" for ref #12.
  • 'the Ministries/Departments in the Government of India' is not a single body. —Vensatry (talk) 20:12, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

—Vensatry (talk) 19:08, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Aurobindo is mentioned first disregarding the chronology because Gandhi invokes a special mentioning and deserves a whole paragraph. Adding it before would make it less catchy to the lead as a whole and thus losing the emphasis it requires. Hence it is placed second. Thank you for your valuable review and comments. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:07, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. How about including R. K. Narayan? —Vensatry (talk) 20:12, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
All done. R K Narayan is notable but so is Nehru and multiple other personalities. Aurobindo received multiple nominations (for two different fields) and is indeed a bigger notable figure. Hence he is added. Thank you. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 11:42, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, never knew that Nehru was nominated eleven times. IMO, this is all set once the opening sentence of the lead is reworked a bit. —Vensatry (talk) 05:10, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm not convinced this list should exist in the first place, let alone be a WP:Featured list. It would seem to be a non-encyclopaedic cross-categorization, which is not considered a sufficient basis for creating an article, unless the intersection of those categories is in some way a culturally significant phenomenon per WP:NOT. The same applies to the corresponding lists for Argentina, Australia, Belgium, China, Denmark, and so on. TompaDompa (talk) 01:06, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:INDISCRIMINATE, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources and with over a quarter million annual readership, I'm sure the article is valid in its existence. Please go though the AfD discussion for more details. All the citations are verified and from relaible sources and all the criterion from WP:WIAA are clearly fulfilled. Within the past 13 years from its creation, the article was very much near to perfection. Thank you. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 10:10, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really see anything in the AfD, the article itself, or on the talk page thereof which demonstrates that the intersection of Indians and Nobel laureates is a culturally significant phenomenon. By contrast, List of Jewish Nobel laureates notes in its WP:LEAD that the percentage of Jewish Nobel laureates is at least 112.5 times or 11,250% above average. Various theories have been made to explain this phenomenon, which has received considerable attention. Prominent late Israeli academics Dr. Elay Ben-Gal and Professor Yeshayahu Leibowitz, curious about the phenomenon, started to form an encyclopedia of Jewish Nobel laureates and interview as many as possible about their life and work. Could something similar be added to this list? TompaDompa (talk) 20:16, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think the current lead is in compliance with WP:LEAD as well as the comments and reviews per this nom page. Or would you like to suggest another change? For example, what exact kind of more information should the lead contain further more so that it may be complete yet not too long for a FL article. Thank you. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 01:11, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
what exact kind of more information should the lead contain further more so that it may be complete yet not too long for a FL article Well, that would be information which demonstrates that the intersection of Indians and Nobel laureates is a culturally significant phenomenon. TompaDompa (talk) 14:36, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am certainly not sure how to put the culturally significant part in words or to support it using references. IMHO, it would be redundant and superfluous given the number of references (Indian as well as foreign) indicating the title's existence and the number of views the article is getting. Adding a line in the lead stating 'so and so reason is the presence of this percent of Indians in the Nobel Laureate list' would certainly be redundant. If you are still not satisfied with the existence of the article, you may go for an AfD. Thank you. :-) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 01:47, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Director comment – Anybody else have any thoughts on whether this is a valid stand-alone article? This FLC has been open for a couple of months and has three supporters, and I need to know whether it's time for a source review. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:03, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment if there's reasonable third-party coverage of "Indian Nobel Prize winners" i.e. the topic is notable in its own right, then a standalone list can justifiably exist and there's no reason why then it shouldn't be nominated here. If there is insufficient third party coverage of this intersection to substantiate notability, then it should probably go to AFD. Arguments related to other lists have pretty much no bearing here. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:41, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As far as IK, there is pretty much very good third party coverage on the title as clearly evident from the references and the number of hits the article is getting. Thanks. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 16:02, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. I don't think the references on List of Indian Nobel laureates support the notion that the the intersection of those categories is in some way a culturally significant phenomenon per WP:NOT, and the number of hits the article is getting is irrelevant to its validity as a WP:Stand-alone list. I also have to say that I find its adherence to WP:LISTCRITERIA (Selection criteria (also known as inclusion criteria or membership criteria) should be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources.) dubious – the first list (Indian citizens) seems like it would obviously pass, but it becomes tricky when one considers that the modern state of India didn't exist until several decades after the first of these Nobel Prizes were awarded (Rabindranath Tagore was born and died in British India, and was therefore as far as I can tell a subject of the British Empire his entire life), and the other two (Indian origin and Indian linkages) are also highly questionable (ultimately, it becomes a question of what it means to be "Indian", which doesn't really have a self-evident and clear-cut answer, and I'm not sure that the amalgamation of different definitions used by this list is in compliance with WP:NPOV). In short, I don't think it has been demonstrated that this is a valid WP:CFORK of List of Nobel laureates by country. TompaDompa (talk) 17:15, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Herald, this seems to be intractable unless you can provide evidence in the contrary to TompaDompa's position. As I noted, if you can provide reasonable third-party coverage of "Indian Nobel Prize winners" i.e. the topic is notable in its own right, then a standalone list can justifiably exist and there's no reason why then it shouldn't be nominated here. Just saying it's ok or saying "as far as IK", is not enough. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:46, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the third party coverage, here are some references"
  • [4] - A highly reliable cite by Indian government
  • [5] - Scientific India Journal
  • [6] - Free Press Journal
  • Also, cites such as NDTV, the Hindu, etc also are highly relevant. Plus, the inclusion of the current members in the list is under the category of persons who are either born in India (citizens) or have Indian ancestry. And the inclusion of Tagore is due to the factor that he posses the citizenship of the country and regarded as the national poet of India. It's really surprising to find that the addition of Tagore as an Indian is disputed here. Thanks. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 14:43, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this is a valid list. There is reasonable coverage of Nobel laureates with Indian connections in third party sources as the nominator shows and the topic is of considerable interest to Wikipedia readers. I came to this page from 'Nominations urgently needing reviews' and I think the question of validity needs a decision from the director and delegates before anyone comments further on the content. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:27, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • My opinion stands. If there's a consensus that sufficient third party coverage of this intersection exists in verifiable reliable sources, then it's just fine. It's not down to the director or his delegates to make a unilateral decision on that one, in my opinion, we act in accordance with the community's wishes, which, so far, seem to be very much in favour of the existence of this list. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:26, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dudley, TRM is right in that we don't have the power to decide by ourselves that something is notable enough for its own article. We can provide our own opinions in the role of a reviewer, but that's all. If I was to give my opinion, I'd say that the potential sources listed above are enough to show significant coverage of the topic of Indian Nobel laureates. If I was to provide a suggestion for the nominator, I'd recommend reviewing the five references up there with the aim of incorporating them as sources in the article; the only one I see in the citations is the Hindu page. Giants2008 (Talk) 19:50, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 22:09, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Source review – All of the references are sufficiently reliable, and the link-checker shows no dead links. I also did spot-checks of refs 3, 16, and 24, with a couple issues identified below. There are also several formatting issues that I found:
  • What is meant to be citing the award rationales? I checked the ones for Mother Teresa and the Dalai Lama, and neither quote is supported by the sources provided. Are they part of another page you read that needs to be added as a source here? I wouldn't feel comfortable promoting this article if these direct quotations can't be backed by sourcing.
  • Ref 1 should have the author decapitalized, and The Telegraph India should be italicized as a print publication.
  • The publisher of ref 2 (Encyclopedia Brittanica) should also be italicized.
  • Also in ref 2, the title could use an en dash to replace the hyphen.
  • If Science and Culture is a print publication, that publisher also needs italics.
  • Ref 8 could use an ISBN number.
  • Ref 12 has the author with first name first, unlike the other citations. I'd change this one to be consistent with the others.
  • Ref 4's title is different than the one provided in the article. Not sure if it changed since it was added, but it wouldn't be the worst idea to update it while making these other fixes. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:23, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed..The Herald (Benison) (talk) 17:53, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure that I made this clear enough in my original source review, but I wanted all of the sources for the rationales checked to make sure they match what the article lists as the reason. The Dalai Lama source wasn't changed and doesn't contain the rationale, while the new Mother Teresa source doesn't have the exact wording from the quote. The article says "For her selfless work", while the source says "in recognition of Mother Teresa's work" and doesn't use the phrase "selflessly" until later. Please double-check all of the sources and add new ones for the rationales if necessary. I looked at a few other entries and they had the rationales, but as I said earlier I wouldn't want to promote this article with content that is unverified. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:24, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, the new refs (4 and 17) have date formatting that is inconsistent with the other sources. They should be edited to match the style of the other references. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:24, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. All the sources now match with the rationales provided. Thank you. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 10:56, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, a new source was added for the one rationale I didn't find earlier and checks of a couple others showed the rationales properly supported; also, the date formatting has been made consistent. I'd say the source review has been passed now. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:09, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley edit

  • "in the fields of Physics, Chemistry, Physiology or Medicine, Literature, Peace and Economic Sciences,[2] instituted by Alfred Nobel's last will" Nobel did not institute the economics prize and it is not strictly a Nobel prize.
  • "They are widely recognized as one of the most prestigious honours awarded in the aforementioned fields." Unreferenced POV - and probably an understatement!
  • "Notably, Sri Aurobindo, the Indian poet, philosopher, nationalist and developer of integral yoga, was nominated for the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1943 and for the Nobel Peace Prize in 1950." I would delete "Notably" as POV and you should say that the nominations were unsuccessful on both occasions.
  • Ditto spell out that the nominations of Gandhi were unsuccessful.
  • "who were Indian citizens at the time they were awarded the Nobel Prize". This is not correct for the first two laureates - as an editor points out above. They were legally British subjects. I suggest "Indians living in India". This would (correctly in my view) exclude Mother Teresa.
  • The heading 'Country' in the second and third lists should be 'Country of residence.
  • The middle list is indented, presumably because the lists are centred, but I think they would look better left justified. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:48, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. The indentation is left as such to maintain the consistency. Thank you. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 17:53, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - although I think the lists should be left aligned, not centred. If they were all left aligned that would maintain the consistency. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:41, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I also am not seeing something to pull this list to AfD, which leaves it eligible for FL status. The consensus otherwise being pretty clear, and source review passed; promoting. --PresN 04:12, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
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/List_of_Indian_Nobel_laureates/archive2&oldid=881030523"