Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Rumford Prize/archive2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Shoemaker's Holiday 00:37, 9 October 2009 [1].

Rumford Prize

[edit]
Nominator(s): ResMar 14:20, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

I am nominating this for featured list because all of the issues from the last FLC have been adressed (most notably, all of the citations have been changed so they do not violate any copyrights) and it seems ready for another nomination. ResMar 14:20, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I will be the first to support. I can't see any problem.—Chris! ct 05:49, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • My only quibble is that in the lead you refer to Thompson as "also known as "Count Rumford"", which to me reads as if it was a mere nickname. From his own article I think it was actually an aristocractic title, although the article isn't very clear. If that's the case then maybe change to "....Thompson, who held the title Count Rumford" or similar -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:26, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. ResMar 19:56, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In that case I will be the second to support :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:02, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "who held the title "count rumford" in.." might be wise to change it to "Count Rumford in the peerage of the X (replace with Ireland, Scotland, United Kingdom, whatever), since 1) Americans don't have titles and 2) it currently reads as "he held that title in 1796. Not 1796, not 1797, 1796." Might just be me being quibbly, but.. Ironholds (talk) 22:32, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. ResMar 22:44, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support, all issues resolved. I won't let alt text hold up the nomination, but please try to folllow up with Eubulides. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:43, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) All in all, much better.
Doing that, but its real annoying because A) I understand alt text only vaugely and B) This article has a bunch of potraits arranged at the side, and I see not how to make each description "unique." ResMar 03:20, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see you contacted Eubulides; he should be able to help you out. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:44, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and the Academy was allowed to award the prize as it saw fit" So when was the Academy allowed to award the prize before the rules changed?
Clarified (annually). ResMar 03:28, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "has won both the Rumford Prize and the related Rumford Medal, both in 1886." If possible, can you briefly explain the difference between the Rumford Prize and the Rumford Name?
Done. ResMar 03:28, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Because the prize is awarded by the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, all of the recipients are American," I still don't like that first phrase, which is based on conjecture. Why not just state the facts and let readers draw conclusions?
No can do. This was changed from what you are suggesting in the first FLC when it was not seen as "clear enough" why. ResMar 03:28, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But this could be considered original research. We don't know that the Academy specifically looks for American candidates. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:44, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One of the papers you sent me mentioned that the original cluase was as an award for American candidates. ResMar 20:11, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Still waiting on Eub for help with the alts though, he's real overloaded with people like me right now so give it some time. ResMar 23:05, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No rush; I intend to support after that is resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:38, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. ResMar 02:17, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:43, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. ResMar 03:28, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support
Please have a go at the alt text. It may seem difficult but there are plenty of people who can help, and it is part of the criteria. The list is so close that it'd be a shame for to fail on this criterion alone. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:18, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I added the alt text, it's not that good but it's better than nothing.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 18:36, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The 1971 prize members should be listed in the article (in a footnote) rather than via an external link in body text. (Wikipedia should be self-sufficient for information). Colin°Talk 19:43, 7 October 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/Rumford_Prize/archive2&oldid=1143898834"