Talk:Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine/GA2

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Looie496 (talk) 19:26, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I am pleased to review this important article. Just so you know who you're dealing with, my main expertise is in behavioral neuroscience. Even on a first reading I can see that it is generally at the GA quality level, and the changes I will ask for will be relatively minor. Here are my initial suggestions for possible improvements:

1. It would be nice if the article could give more info about the types of work that received awards over time. It mentions the disappearance of basic physiology, but if it could say more about medicine versus physiology, the types of medicine, and the types of physiology, I think it would be useful to readers. (Addendum: I see now that this is discussed in the Laureates section. It would be nice to have it stand out a little better.)
2. Articles should not include statements that will soon become untrue, such as "The 2010 winner(s) will be announced Ocober 4, 2010".
3. I don't know what the difference is between "classical Physiology" and other types of physiology. If I, a physiologist, don't know this, it seems unlikely that other readers will.
4. Award money: It would be nice to have some actual numbers here.
5. Ceremony and banquet: As I see it, the most important aspect of the ceremony is that the winner has a chance to give a lecture, which is usually used to put the work in historical perspective. Many of these lectures become famous publications. I'm not sure the number of courses in the banquet is worth mentioning (but I don't insist that it go).
6. I have the impression that the section on the 1962 prize may not be 100% balanced, but I don't know enough about the details of the controversy to have strong feelings about this.
7. It would be nice to say something about the impact of the prize. How has it affected the community and the scientists who have received it?

Those are the main points that I see. I'll look over the sources and pictures and such over the next few days. Looie496 (talk) 19:26, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

GA1

Let me add that I've just gone over the first GA review, and don't see a need to add much to what I wrote above. As a reviewer, I will regard the Nobel Prize organization as a reliable source. The only place where issues of sourcing may come up, as far as I am concerned, is in the discussion of controversies. Looie496 (talk) 19:40, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Just noting that the nominator was indef-blocked, so unless there's someone else fixing your concerns it should be failed. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 03:15, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

What's the status? Do we need to round up some help for this? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:24, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

If it can wait until the weekend, I think I can address the reviewers concerns. If not, I can fix them up and then renom. Canada Hky (talk) 16:47, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

One of the issues above was fixed, but it seems there are a few outstanding issues still and it's been over a month. As a result I'm failing this article; what's left can be fixed and it can always be re-nommed. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:13, 14 September 2010 (UTC)