Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Hughes Medal

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 Scorpion0422 00:45, 18 February 2009 [1].

Hughes Medal

Nominator(s): — neuro^(talk), Ironholds (talk)

A Royal Society medal - worked on by myself and Ironholds, seems FLable. — neuro^(talk) 16:35, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note One of the nominators, Neurolysis, is a WikiCup participant. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:26, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I asked Garden if I should note that (I listed this before it was mentioned, and he said it didn't matter, in case you are wondering why I didn't do it myself). I don't know FLC etiquette so well, so I just figured it was best to leave it alone once it was announced that it should be mentioned in the opening statement.. — neuro^(talk) 17:58, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scorpion said something about it here and here. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:21, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh right, didn't see those. Fair enough then. :) — neuro^(talk) 12:59, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Rambo's Revenge (talk · contribs)

~~Initial concern~~ from Rambo's Revenge (talk · contribs)

NNDB does not seem to be a reliable source. I had a look around on wikipedia and all mentions at WP:RS/N cast severe doubts over its reliability (here & here), WP:BLP/N sees to come to the same conclusion (here) and has even listed it as an ongoing BLP concern. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:52, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ooh eck. Give me 20 minutes and I will try and find better sourcing. Ironholds (talk) 18:53, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, working on this too. I was informed that NNDB met RS, but if it doesn't I will work on fishing up some other refs. — neuro^(talk) 19:51, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Got to go out for a bit, but you can see what is going on here, seems to be coming along alright. — neuro^(talk) 20:40, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
NNDB stuff done, thanks to Neuro. Ironholds (talk) 16:46, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'm fine with this now.

Comments

~~I'd give Michelle Dougherty an explicit cite (list & lead) as she is not listed on the general refs winners page. This should do.~~
~~General references say "The Royal Society", just Royal Society I think.~~
~~Ref 5 "JSTOR" is italicised but it isn't for any other of the refs.~~
I notice a few occasions when the Medal has been shared by 2 or 3 people. Do they share the medal and money? How many times has this happened? Those might be worth mentioning in the lead.
I am a bit concerned about the image. It appears quite widely on the internet. Looking around I think it is possible it may have originally come from here. I think this could be a copyvio, additionally it was the user's (Gosaldar) only contribution and they did not provide a date they took the photo.
~~All books should have pubishers stated. e.g. refs 22 to 25 are missing along with some others.~~
~~Refs 5, 7, 42, 43, 50, and 79 all need subscriptions to verify the info. This should be noted in the ref.~~

Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:56, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All fixed; I simply replaced the image in the end. Ironholds (talk) 16:14, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Woops, forgot about that one. I honestly have no idea if the money is shared; as previously stated, the Royal Society website is the only real source for decent info, and that doesn't say anything. I've added a bit about it being awarded to multiple individuals at a time, though. Ironholds (talk) 17:35, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but if you add quotations to the lead they need a cite there too per WP:LEADCITE. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 17:27, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 18:36, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support, all my issues above have been resolved. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 19:29, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Truco

Comments from Truco (talk · contribs)

The most recent winner was Michele Dougherty, who was awarded the medal "for innovative use of magnetic field data that led to discovery of an atmosphere around one of Saturn's moons and the way it revolutionised our view of the role of planetary moons in the Solar System". - winner should be "recipient"
Done — neuro^(talk) 23:48, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why was it named after Hughes?
Doing — neuro^(talk) 23:48, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I assume 'because he died and was popular'. Normally it is either 'X gave us masses of money, so we made a medal for him' or 'X died and we liked him, so we made a medal for him'. Ironholds (talk) 05:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can that be verified by a source, though?--TRU CO 01:10, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is this going to be added with a source or is it going to be left out?--TRU CO 15:11, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Left out; it was more a glib remark than a serious statement. We can verify it is named after him, but we cannot unfortunately verify why. Ironholds (talk) 15:13, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay.--TRU CO 16:02, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Where there any other significant recipients that should be noted in the lead?
Doing — neuro^(talk) 23:48, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The not awarded entry should sort towards the bottom of the list IMO.
Done — neuro^(talk) 23:45, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since JSTOR is not elaborated in the article, its acronym should be spelled out in the references.
Done — neuro^(talk) 23:48, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 20 has JSTOR linked, but it should be linked in its first occurrence of ref #5
Done — neuro^(talk) 00:11, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am also skeptical about Notable Names Database, can you prove its fact checking system?--TRU CO 22:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Doing, removing all NNDBs and replacing with other refs - about half way done. — neuro^(talk) 23:49, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, going to bed now, don't know if Ironholds will come on later tonight and add some more, if not, they'll all be done by the end of tomorrow. — neuro^(talk) 00:11, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Until then, I will support.--TRU CO 01:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Still pending on the sourcing issue.TRU CO 01:10, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sourcing issue close to being resolved, doing the last eight now. — neuro^(talk) 01:36, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done — neuro^(talk) 01:59, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support - problems fixed to meet WP:WIAFL.TRU CO 16:02, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:50, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

"The only year where no medal "-->The only year in which no medal
"Unlike other Royal Society medals such as the Copley Medal, " "such as the Copley Medal" is unnecessary. You might link "other Royal Society medals" to Royal Society#Medals.
"J. J. Thompson"-->J. J. Thomson
"Frédéric Joliot"-->Frédéric Joliot-Curie
"Anthony Hewish"-->Antony Hewish
Several dabs need to be fixed. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:43, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:50, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Publications such as The New York Times (by the way, "The" is part of the title and should be part of the work), the Chicago Tribune and The Telegraph should be in italics. This can be done by changing "publisher" to "work" in the citation template. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:43, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All done. Ironholds (talk) 01:53, 8 February 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.