Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Russ Prize/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 The Rambling Man 17:29, 17 January 2011 [1].
Russ Prize (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
| Toolbox |
|---|
- Nominator(s): ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 09:17, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I think it meets all the criteria, maybe except 5b. ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 09:17, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - It fails 2 as far as I'm aware, also I feel it could easily fail 3b as its comprehensiveness is a question I could see the award being part of the National Academy of Engineering article. Afro (Talk) 19:51, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It isn't a "part". The NAE is a organisation, that awards three prizes for engineering, Russ Prize including.
- On the 3b issue I could easily see all 3 of the lists fitting like this in my Sandbox granted the others could be vastly expanded on. Afro (Talk) 22:22, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Nice for you, but it is not lucid and each awards haven't any lead and information. The prizes are all different, Russ Prize is for example awarded to Bioengeneering. So a merging is not really clever. I don't think it is a content-forking list, neither it is a non-stand-alone list. If the Academy Awards awarded every decade per category, would you say the same, only because of less awardees? BTW, there are 5 awards, not 3. I was going to promote all 5 awards to a FLC to get my first FT, but if you think so, I have no other choice to withdraw it.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 11:14, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have added the Leads to the Sandbox to remove the fact neither of the 3 had much information, and its only a 4kb difference at 20kb, which if you pay attention to WP:SIZERULE it says "Length alone does not justify division" and if you pay attention to WP:SIZE it probably would give enough justification to divide up the Academy Awards. Afro (Talk) 12:22, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - It should at the very least include the 2011 winner, [2]. ManfromButtonwillow (talk) 20:18, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- updated-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 20:34, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've copy-edited a bit. You must give a reference for the claim that it's one of the prizes known as the "Nobel Prizes of Engineering". Referencing needs to be improved: in the lead, you mention the 2011 winner using this reference which doesn't mention him. I would have thought that there is more to be said about the prize than just the few sentences you currently have – what's said about it by sources other than the NAE, for instance? It's a bit thin at present. BencherliteTalk 13:47, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your CE. I will search for other sources, except NAE, that give more informations about this award. I can include, even if I am not sure if this is allowed because of copyright, some text from the nomination procedure.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 14:42, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks like that the interest is as tiny as the list.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 10:15, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Afkatk as I too think that this fails 3(b) of the criteria. The sandbox above shows that a section in the NAE article about the award would work fine; all that version needs is a couple of extra sentences about the history of the award. The nomination procedure, for example, is far too trivial to include either in this list or the main article (frankly, who cares that the application has to be typed, in English, and sent by email or fax with a CV of no more than two pages, etc?) One alternative might be a list giving details of all the prizes (five, you say?) awarded by the NAE, but five short lists is not a good route to 5 FLs and 1 FT. BencherliteTalk 11:32, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well then I withdraw this list and see what I can do with the NAE article.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 12:15, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.