Talk:Royal Society/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Materialscientist (talk) 11:45, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

This article deserves GA status. It is well written, neutral, stable and well referenced with in-line citations. I find it rather thorough, but would welcome further expansion of some parts, especially history. A few minor problems had been fixed during the review, as documented below.

Extended content

I've changed plenty of little bits and pieces. Please check and discuss when necessary. I mention below only a few "The Society is governed by its Council, which is chaired by its President" - somewhat unclear whether it is president of society or of the Council? would "The Society is governed by its Council, which is chaired by the Society's President" work better? Ironholds (talk) 17:19, 23 December 2009 (UTC) Yes, I put it in. "the latter of which are allowed to use ForMemRS" - ForMemRS needs some form of explanation - wikilink or/and a footnote; same for "Grade I listed building" ForMemRS is covered later in the article; the entire point of a lead is that it gives a brief summation of the article itself. I've linked Grade I listed building. Ironholds (talk) 17:19, 23 December 2009 (UTC) Grade I listed building - Ok, ForMemRS not - abbreviations/acronyms are to be defined. I changed the text. What is "D., J.D.G." and "S., A.C." standing for authors in the "Bibliography" section (entry 3 1st column, e2 2nd column)? The original say J.D.G.D. and A.C.S and I doubt those are human names. No, but I have no way of knowing the abbreviations. The original documents give them as J.D.G.D. and so on; it's working in the same way as Lastname, Firstname. Unfortunately, both first and last names are abbvs. Ironholds (talk) 17:19, 23 December 2009 (UTC) As long as we don't know what it means we may not assume their split (who knows, maybe some letters are a title), thus I changed them to original. "published an English translation of" I guess it was from Italian, but suggest briefly explaining what was actually translated. Done. Ironholds (talk) 17:19, 23 December 2009 (UTC) "Philosophical Transactions is the oldest and longest-running scientific journal in the world" the provided ref confirms only the latter. I recall there was an older journal which ceased publication, but not 100% sure. I'll work with longest-running, then. Ironholds (talk) 17:19, 23 December 2009 (UTC) Yes, Journal des sçavans beated Transactions by a couple of months, but I thought there was another one .. never mind. ".. were created in No.7, using the Magna Boschi marble found in No.8" - need to clarify No.7 and 8. Tried; there isn't much I feel I can do with that, but have a looksee. Ironholds (talk) 17:19, 23 December 2009 (UTC) "two or more Operators of Experiments, and two or more clerks" need a cite. It's the Robinson cite. Ironholds (talk) 16:07, 24 December 2009 (UTC) "who Hardwicke played a large part in electing" - please check/reformulate (sounds a bit odd) Fixed. "a translation of Essays of Natural Experiments Made in the Accademia del Cimento" - any chance to have a date for that (for uniformity). The original document, or the translation? Ironholds (talk) 16:07, 24 December 2009 (UTC) The translation date would be better, it is more of nitpicking - other events around have their dates and it strikes odd that this one doesn't. Done. Are the below comments non-resolved? Ironholds (talk) 20:49, 25 December 2009 (UTC) No, awaiting your contribution. "with the result being that the Society now consists exclusively of scientific Fellows" - please check this strong statement. I doubt there is no Fellow elected for political reasons. Just an example, can David Attenborough be considered scientist (I haven't dug deeper into the list)? There is no fellow elected for political reasons. Those "political" fellows are elected as Honorary Members; Attenborough's role explaining the natural sciences to millions is seen as a "scientific" role, in the same way that Dawkins' work is (although his work on memetics is easily independently worth a fellowship). Ironholds (talk) 16:07, 24 December 2009 (UTC) I'm mulling this point, which is about who are "scientific Fellows", but it is also hinged to the comment below. Materialscientist (talk) 03:14, 26 December 2009 (UTC) A relevant point "The Council is a body of 21 Fellows, including the President, the Treasurer, 2 Secretaries" - are the latter Fellows? If yes, this adds to the above point that all Fellows are scientists. Sorry, missed the question there; yes, all Officers are Fellows; Council members are elected by the Fellowship, from the Fellowship. Ironholds (talk) 14:03, 26 December 2009 (UTC) Treasurer of this scale would probably be a professional (?). To me this is only an issue of phrasing in "with the result being that the Society now consists exclusively of scientific Fellows". I'm skeptical on that, but might be right or wrong. Suggest either dispersing my doubts or soften the statement. Materialscientist (talk) 14:15, 26 December 2009 (UTC) Nope; Treasurers here are always scientists, unless you think Peter Williams is some form of professional accountant or similar. The Officers are aided by permanent staff, who I assume do the actual treasuring. It's similar to the Inns of Court (see Gray's Inn for a complete article) where the "Treasurer" is a barrister, but assisted by permanent staff who do the actual work. Ironholds (talk) 14:48, 26 December 2009 (UTC) "An alternate view of the time was that it was due to the influence" - unclear. View on what? How the Society came to be founded. Ironholds (talk) 16:07, 24 December 2009 (UTC) Good. Let us reflect this in the article. Materialscientist (talk) 02:57, 27 December 2009 (UTC) Done. Ironholds (talk) 03:19, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Unresolved issues

• Right, Newton. He appears only in the 18th century section, though he was a member back in 17th century. His part in the Society needs to be expanded, at least a little.

  I'll try and find sourcing; no chance you know anyone with a Newton biography? Ironholds (talk) 14:03, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

  Brief mentioning will do. I only saw somewhere what I wrote above (that he was a long-time member). Materialscientist (talk) 14:15, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

  See "The 18th century did, however, feature remedies to many of the Society's early problems. The number of Fellows had increased from 110 to approximately 300 by 1739, the reputation of the Society had increased under the Presidency of Sir Isaac Newton from 1703, and editions of the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society were appearing regularly.[17] In 1705, the Society was informed that it could no longer rent Gresham College, and began a search for new premises. After unsuccessfully applying to Queen Anne for new premises, and asking the trustees of Cotton House if they could meet there, the Council bought two houses in Crane Court, Fleet Street, on 26 October 1710.[18] This included offices, accommodation and a Collection of Curiosities. Although the overall Fellowship contained few noted scientists, most of the Council were highly regarded, and included at various times John Hadley, William Jones and Hans Sloane.[19] Because of the laxness of Fellows in paying their subscriptions, the Society ran into financial difficulty during this time; by 1740, the Society had a deficit of £240. This continued into 1741, at which point the Treasurer began dealing harshly with Fellows who had not paid.[20] The business of the Society at this time continued to include the demonstration of experiments and the reading of formal and important scientific papers, along with the demonstration of new scientific devices and queries about scientific matters from both Britain and Europe.[21]". Ironholds (talk) 14:48, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

  Sure, but Newton appears suddenly as a President in 1703 in "The 18th century". Can we mention him earlier, when he joined, expand a bit on his role in the society? There will not be much more in this review, but one of the brightest humans deserves more details here. Materialscientist (talk) 15:07, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

  But his only notable work in relation to the society was as President, and the publishing of his first serious work (which is already covered). Arguably Hooke was also of similar importance at the time, but since his role in the Society is minor after founding it, there is little coverage of him as an individual. Ironholds (talk) 00:04, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

  Covered where? This contains some bits (search for "Royal"), which I hoped to be expanded. You most probably know them all, but my point is to update the article with a summary (extended version might belong to the articles of Netwon and Hooke) - I respectfully disagree that the roles of Newton and Hooke were insignificant. Materialscientist (talk) 02:41, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

  "covered where" in regards to who, sorry? I'm not disputing that they had major roles - I'm saying that most of the work they did in relation to the society which was important was as President. Almost all Presidents have done similarly important things; covering anyone who had made particular changes would be a logistical nightmare. Ironholds (talk) 02:43, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

  I meant the roles of Newton and Hookes specifically in the Royal Society, which I disagree were insignificant. "Covered" refers to your reply just above, "which is already covered". Materialscientist (talk) 02:57, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

  You seemed to be misunderstanding me. Their role was not insignificant, but was confined to their time as President. To include information on Hooke and Newton's presidencies would require doing that for all presidencies, something that would end up waaaay out of proportion. Ironholds (talk) 03:19, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

<indent>In short, I find all RS and RS proceedings related bits, mentioned here, worth including. If you you feel this diminishes contributions of other presidents, you're more than welcome to include some. I believe there is no doubt that Newton was the most remarkable figure in the RS, and Hookes is closely "related" to him. Materialscientist (talk) 03:30, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, then; I'll work on including the bits found there. Ironholds (talk) 14:56, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Rightyo, added some Newton info. Ironholds (talk) 00:48, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

That alright? Ironholds (talk) 18:28, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

• Several Bibliography items appear unused, such as A.C.S., Syfret (1950), maybe others - please check. I moved some refs from bibliography to references - as you don't use Harvard linking, some titles were hard to find alphabetically.

  I've checked and removed those for now. Ironholds (talk) 14:56, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

|}

Massive update

As people can see, I've massively updated, tweaked and expanded the article - if anyone feels like commenting/criticising/suggesting amendments, feel free to drop something here on the talk :). Ironholds (talk) 21:08, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I just came across an article in The Economist that mentions this year, ie 2010, as the 350th anniversary of the society, pegging the 28th November, 1660 date as its date of foundation. On checking the Royal Society website I found a validation of that information . While this entry mentions the date it does not explicitly point it out as the date of foundation. Do you think it ought to mention something on the lines of "This event is today recognised as the founding meeting of the Royal Society", as it does in the website, in reference to it. Demodifier (talk) 13:28, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Good point; I'll link it in this evening when I get back from work. Thanks, Ironholds (talk) 14:53, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

28 November 1660 was indeed the founding meeting of the first Fellows and is the date we now use to celebrate our Anniversary Day. As to the actual date of foundation, there are a number of possibilities. It might be wise to use the date we were granted a Royal Charter by King Charles II (although he granted us three of them, which doesn't exactly help!) PointOfPresence (talk) 13:20, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi, good job on the article. Perhaps you could sketch the move from pre-uniformitarian times under Pepys, Newton et al, to the present? There is huge interest on this, what with the recent attempted sacking of one fellow[1] for being percieved as not uniformitarian enough. Maybe outline what part the uniformitarian assumptions play within the Society, and how they differ from the creation style assumptions made by Newton, Maxwell, Kepler et al.

7kingis (talk) 03:25, 7 April 2010 (UTC)