Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Timeline of chemistry
This is a self-nomination of an article that I, along with several other editors, including principally Sadi Carnot and Itub, and others, have worked on. I propose that this article meets the criteria as a featured list based on the following:
- Based on Criteria 1:
- (a)it is useful (per 1 (a) (2)): it is a timeline with every entry verified in a third-party source as to its significance)
- (b)it is comprensive: it does not omit any major discovery. Chemistry is a dynamic and full field, and every novel compound or experiment cannot be included, but I feel the editors of this list (myself included) have done a good job at getting nearly every important discovery.
- (c)it is factually accurate: every entry is verified by being attributed to a reliable source that shows not only the facts behind the entry, but the significance of the entry to the field of chemistry. In other words, I have found third-party sources that ALSO list these discoveries as highly significant.
- (d)it is uncontroversial: I am not sure that any of these entries would qualify as controversial
- (e)it is stable: no edit warring at all.
- (f)it is well-constructed: It is chronologically organized, and subdivided for easy of navigation.
- Based on Criteria 2:
- (a)it has a comprehensive but informative lead
- (b)it has a logical system of headings
- (c)it has a reasonable TOC
- Based on Critera 3:
- It has appropriately tagged and captioned images that are all free or fair-use.
Please review this list and let me know if any changes are needed to bring it to Featured status, and if not, please support its promotion! Thank you and happy editing. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 20:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support As Jayron32 says, I also contributed to this list, so I may be a bit biased. However, I agree with all the points above (except that I don't think any entries would qualify as controversial, maybe it was a typo?). Anyway, I think this is a great list, mostly due to Jayron32 who started it and did most of the work, and it has everything it needs to be featured IMO. --Itub 20:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Still has that little extra step to go. Mostly minor things, but their combinations makes the list less than ideal:
- The entries' format is less than ideal, I'm afraid. Full sentence without the unwarranted break would be far superior.
- Lead image is a very poor choice.
- First paragraph should be tweaked to be less trite.
- Images on the lleft of a list are not a good idea. Inside the item is an even worse one. Since this is not a table, they could be larger (180-200px), too.
- History of chemistry should definitely have a link in the lead, not the "See also."
- External links should be last, per Wikipedia:Guide to Layout
- Circeus 22:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- request clarification Just so that I know what to fix, could you please clarify your objections so I can fix them? Specifically:
- I assume when you say "Full Sentance" I should omit the hypens and just leave it as a sentance?
- What do you mean by "trite"? Do you mean to short or terse? The other paragraphs in the lead section elaborate on this paragraph. Could you please elaborate on what should be added/removed/changed?
- Lead image removed. Done.
- Not sure what you mean by this: "Images on the lleft of a list are not a good idea. Inside the item is an even worse one". The Manual of Style specifically says, and I quote, "When using multiple images in the same article, they can be staggered right-and-left" This article complies fully with that guideline. How do you propose the images should be organized, if they are not to follow the Manual of Style? I will, however, resize all images to a more readable size.
- History of chemistry moved to lead from see also section
- External links moved
- I have made the changes I was able to understand (see above) but could you please clarify the points I don't understand so that I can make the changes you want. Thank you. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, that is what I mean. Look at e.g. Timeline of the 2005 Pacific hurricane season or Timeline of events in the Cold War. While I'll admit many events are discoveries (cf. scientific discoveries uses a similar format, but not meteorology or information theory), not all of them are.
- Now that I look at it, almost all of them discoveries, but not all major events in science are that. Where are the Solvay Conferences, for example?
- Admittedly, "trite" was not the best word. Maybe Avoid self-references is a beter page to link to.
- I did not mean the image had to go! I firmly believe there should be one. THe one that was there was, however, inappropriate. I'm sure commons:category:History of chemistry has something that fits.
- Well, maybe a more appropriate place to look at is WP:GTL#Images, which devellops a bit on some points (although these two sections would gain from a bit of harmonization... I'll have to look into it). The important word at WP:MoS is "can". List items interacts in troublesome ways with images, which is why WP:GTL says (emphasis mine):
- Some users prefer images to be all located on the right side of the screen (aligned with boxes), while others prefer them to be evenly alternated between left and right. Both options are valid, although 'in both cases care must be taken for the images not to clash with nearby contents'.
In general, it is considered poor layout practice to place images at the same height on both the left and right side of the screen. Not only does this unnecessarily squeeze text, but this might also cause images to overlap text due to interferences. It is usually not a good idea to place an image intended to illustrate a given section above the header for that section. Placing an image to the left of a header, a list, or the Table of Contents is also frowned upon.
- Images inside and at the left of an item (something I've hardly ever seen, so never had to "counter") causes the bullet point to be in an odd location. They also prevent proper wrapping around the element. see this screenshot for a more explicit exemple.
- Some users prefer images to be all located on the right side of the screen (aligned with boxes), while others prefer them to be evenly alternated between left and right. Both options are valid, although 'in both cases care must be taken for the images not to clash with nearby contents'.
- I meant integration within the text of the lead. Use of "see also"/"Main" links at the top of articles is strongly frowned upon.
- Circeus 18:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Fixes I have made based on above:
- rewrote lead to remove self reference
- reformated entries to read in plain sentance format
- Moved a new picture to the lead section
- right justified all pictures for improved readability
- added entry for the Solvay Conferences
- Any other changes? If there are I will be glad to make them, and if not I would appreciate your support. Thanks again for your help in improving the list... --Jayron32|talk|contribs 01:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- Fixes I have made based on above:
- Yes, that is what I mean. Look at e.g. Timeline of the 2005 Pacific hurricane season or Timeline of events in the Cold War. While I'll admit many events are discoveries (cf. scientific discoveries uses a similar format, but not meteorology or information theory), not all of them are.
- request clarification Just so that I know what to fix, could you please clarify your objections so I can fix them? Specifically:
- Support. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 07:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC).
- Support Looks okay now.Circeus 23:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support, just why no entries since 1995? Renata 00:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Reply: Well, it has to do with the nature of a list like this. In order to be considered noteworthy enough to be considered one of the most important discoveries in chemistry, there is a certain perspective needed that only time can give. In order to merit inclusion, enough people outside of Wikipedia need to recognize it as noteworthy enough. Widespread acceptance as "This is important" only comes with the perspective of time. Also, there is no reason this list cannot grow, even through and beyond the featuring process. If you find something specific missing from the list, and have references to support its addition, by all means add it. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 01:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- To add to what Jayron32 said, just think how many years it usually takes for an important discovery to be recognized with a Nobel Prize. ;-) --Itub 05:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Reply: Well, it has to do with the nature of a list like this. In order to be considered noteworthy enough to be considered one of the most important discoveries in chemistry, there is a certain perspective needed that only time can give. In order to merit inclusion, enough people outside of Wikipedia need to recognize it as noteworthy enough. Widespread acceptance as "This is important" only comes with the perspective of time. Also, there is no reason this list cannot grow, even through and beyond the featuring process. If you find something specific missing from the list, and have references to support its addition, by all means add it. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 01:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Support with a suggestion and a comment: Otto_Hahn#The_discovery_of_nuclear_fission deserves a place on the list and the scientific community recognized its importance immediately. His Nobel Prize followed six years later. DurovaCharge! 05:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- Added him, with references. Thanks for catching that one! --Jayron32|talk|contribs 16:19, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Not to get pushy, but it appears that this list has a consensus to support (the only oppose vote has been changed), and there are now, including mine, 6 support votes. Does anyone else have any further fixes needed or comments to make? Otherwise, I move that this has met the criteria needed for FL listing.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
- If I understand the procedure correctly, yes. There are enough votes, they are unanimous, and the nomination has waited long enough. --Itub 05:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)