Talk:Nobel Prize/GA3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE 16:16, 20 January 2010 (UTC) New Reviewer: --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Preliminary comments[edit]

The section on recent laureates should contain a few more images of other prize winners. Keeping this section updated could be accomplished with subpages if desireable.

More images are easily fixed. Will get on it later today.

What do you mean with subpages? (I'm new) You mean a "Nobel Prize 2009" page should be created? --Esuzu 17:06, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that might be more practical, and could be used every year. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE 18:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. Will try to create such pages soon. Should the "recenct laureates" then only be on the newest laureates or should we keep it as it is? --Esuzu 19:00, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well I don't know, I would recommend doing what seems common sense. You could start a tradition that requires future editors to move last years (recent laureates) to their own new subpage, or just do it now by creating a list of links to each year. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE 19:47, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll start a "2009 Nobel Prize" article then and after that a list that can link all of those sub-pages together. Seems to be the most logical. When more of those sub-pages are created I'll move over the prize info on "Recent Lauretes" to them. And only keep the latest prize. Then that "Recen Laurets" could link (with main) to the list and the most recent prize article perhaps. --Esuzu 21:29, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Update to this: I have created the 2009 Nobel Prize article but I haven't had time with more, with luck I will do some of them tonight. However I would need a new infobox template that I haven't been able to find (or make, I tried but that didn't work out very well). I would need something that links the different Nobel Prize Year's together, for example: if you are viewing the 2007 Nobel Prize you can find links to the previous (2006 Nobel Prize) and the next (2008 Nobel Prize). Does anybody know who could make this for me? Cheers --Esuzu 14:21, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, what is this? That's a totally unnecessary article, as it's completely redundant to the laureate lists, which Scorpion0422 and I worked tirelessly on to get up to FL. It's a clear violation of WP:NOT#NEWS and I'm not exactly sure why it's found its way into a GA review. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 04:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you are right. I'm new to wikipedia so I'm not sure how everything is done around here yet. I did what I thought was required to help this article to get to GA status. If that can be acheived by linking to the list instead I'm just as happy. --Esuzu 16:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links[edit]

Although not required, I'm sure there must be some useful ones. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE 18:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There were some a while ago but since most of them were used as sources I was asked to remove them. But I guess I can add some again. --Esuzu 18:59, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't recommend readding anything. If they are bonafide links, not sources, then fine. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE 19:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it'd make sense to have ELs to the Nobel foundation website [1], the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences [2], the Karolinska Institute [3], the Riksbank [4], and the peace prize page [5] even if some of these are also used as sources.radek (talk) 07:14, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

take

They weren't used as external links before (what I can remember) so it wouldn't be to add something that was removed. Thus it will not conflict with what Founders said earlier I guess. --Esuzu 14:35, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TTT's Notes[edit]

I apologize in advance for my slow editorial pace. I am actually undertaking this review because I want to learn about this subject and reviewing it will force me to pay close attention to this meaty article. I anticipate this article will take a long time for me to get through. I doubt there will be anything eventful between now and Valentine's Day. I will just make comments gradually. You can respond at your leisure. Please do not strike my comments. I will strike them myself, but I hope you would respond below each comment I make.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:59, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since it is going to take me some time to gather myself for this article, please check out the following first blush issues

  • the ref checker show two problematic refs.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:13, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I simply removed the two problematic refs since they were just double-referencing anyway.radek (talk) 19:15, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • On that note, I'm not sure why the sentence " Osamu Shimomura, Martin Chalfie and Roger Tsien isolated and developed a green fluorescent protein (GFP) from a jellyfish." needs to have 7 (had 8) citations after it. Was this in some way controversial or something?radek (talk) 19:15, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've been wondering about that too. I don't beleive it is very controversial at all. One or two sources should definately be suffienct. Will try to remove some later today. --Esuzu 17:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Update: Removed a lot of refs from that section. It was a mess really, I am suspecting some bot made it look like that. Many of the refs were just the same etc... --Esuzu 19:47, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Watch for squeezing text between images. You may want to consider using Template:Multiple image to rearrange images.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:13, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Did this to some images and resized another + changed one to more fitting image. Think the worst is gone. Please specify what more that needs to be done if possible :) --Esuzu 18:03, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Basically, every left-aligned image is on the left because there are too many on the right. They are basically all squeezing. Note that the template has a horizontal alignment. Please try to do something about the squeezing of all left images.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:52, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


WP:LEAD nitpicks
  • "it can be divided into a half and two quarters" probably should be "it may be divided into a half and two quarters"
  • "the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine by the Nobel Assembly at (the) Karolinska Institutet; and the Nobel Prize in Literature by the Swedish Academy." are two phrases that need verbs.
  • "but by the Norwegian Nobel Committee." should be "but rather by the Norwegian Nobel Committee."
  • "This inevitably means one or more people will miss out" should be "This inevitably means one or more people will be unrecognised"--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:52, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
History
  • "On the 10th of December 1896 Alfred Nobel died at the age of sixty-three after suffering a cerebral haemorrhage. in his villa in San Remo, Italy, where he had lived out the last years of his life." seems to be ungrammatical as two sentences. The second needs a subject and verb or needs to be merged with the first.
    • Somehow there was a dot there instead of a comma. Merged the two sentences. Fixed. --Esuzu (talk • contribs) 19:05, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think "in his villa in San Remo, Italy" needs to be moved to either follow died or sixty-three. It currently remains ungrammatical, to the best of my knowledge.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:10, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move the Will (law) link to the first use.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done the will thing. --Esuzu 18:07, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Nobel Foundation
  • "Another important task of the Nobel Foundation is to showcase the Nobel Prize to the outside world and to take charge of informal activities and issues related to the awarding of the Nobel Prizes." seems to be a bit informal. What about something like "Another important task of the Nobel Foundation is to market the Nobel Prize internationally and to oversee informal administration related to the Prizes."
    • Sound good. Replaced the old sentence with the new one. --Esuzu 15:18, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The final paragraph in this section has numerous words capitalized for a reason I can not explain, such as trustees and auditors.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:07, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did this - "Executive Director" and "Deputy Director" should stay capitalized, right?radek (talk) 05:43, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nobel Prize during World War II
  • "The year after that" might sound a tad better as the following or subsequent year.
    • Very true. Fixed. --Esuzu 15:10, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "building in Oslo was Swedish" I do not understand this point.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:40, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Clarified it into: "building in Oslo was Swedish property and thus out of bounds for the German Military" --Esuzu (talk • contribs) 15:45, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I do not understand this line in the sand.
        • "This line in the sand"? Sorry I don't understand the expression but I am guessing you don't understand that version either. I will try to explain. Right: So, Nazi Germany invaded Norway and started to hunt everybody the Nazis didn't like, Jews etc. Members of the Nobel Commitee was thus in danger (I haven't found the exact reason why yet) of persecution/being killed by the Nazi's. Three members even had to flee the country. The rest of the members was also in danger from the Nazis (in one way or another, there is not too much info. I guess the Nazis wanted to disband the Comitee) and to escape persecution they stated that they were working in (Nobel Comitee Building) a Swedish building. Since Germany were not enemies with Sweden they could not attack the Comitee building and thus the comitee could survive. I'm not sure if I can explain it any better. --Esuzu (talk • contribs) 17:25, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Recent Laureates
  • what is the basis for in/exclusion in this section?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:40, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • My first thought was to ONLY have the laureates from last year's Nobel Prize (most recent winners that is) in it but after I added the section somebody added more info. Currently it is just what someone thought was fitting with no general basis for inclusion that I can see. I still think that perhaps only the most recent laureates needs to be named. But I guess we need more opinions on that?--Esuzu 14:03, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • My advice would be to set a clear policy in the code in that section using <!-- Hidden Text code --> saying that this section shall only be used for winners from the past x number of years with the intention of pruning it every year. Then cut this section down to that number. Looking at the text that exists I would set the policy at two years and put all three images in a horizontally aligned Template:Multiple image.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:19, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Added hidden text where I explain that only the 2 latest nobel prizes should be in that section. Removed those who was not 2008 or 2009 laureates. Added those laureates from 2008 that was not mentioned. Image is also horizontally aligned now and I changed of the images to make it look a bit better. --Esuzu (talk • contribs) 19:09, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Recognition time lag
  • Is there a reference stating when "the awards committees began to recognise scientific discoveries that had withstood the test of time." became the new paradigm.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Now that you mention it that paragraph is horribly not-referenced. After some looking around I think I found a couple of reliable sources. --Esuzu (talk • contribs) 17:01, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Award ceremonies
  • Move the comma in "with the exception of the Nobel Peace Prize, and the Prize in Economics" to the end of that phrase.
  • "most recently at Oslo City Hall" should be followed by 1991-present if this is the case.
    • I checked this to be sure. It has been awarded there from 1990-. So I changed it to that. I also noticed that the text said the award ceremony was previously awarded in the aula but in fact it was awarded in the auditorium. So I changed that aswell. --Esuzu (talk • contribs) 19:23, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You failed to describe the Economics ceremony (where it occurs and who presents the awards) although you mention it in the next section.
    • Acctually it seems as there was an error in the part: "with the exception of the Nobel Peace Prize and the Prize in Economics,". The Economics prize is awarded together with all the other awards awarded in Sweden. So I changed that part to: "with the exception of the Nobel Peace Prize,". Should work now right? Or does it need more clarifying? --Esuzu (talk • contribs) 17:11, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oscar II should be linked on his first mention and not here.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Prizes
  • Why does the first paragraph have no citations?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:54, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since I used the text mostly from the lead I didn't think I had to use the references again but I can see that is necessary now. Was a while ago since I wrote that. Fixed by adding the references.--Esuzu (talk • contribs) 19:23, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not excited about the references for "If there are three, the awarding committee has the option of dividing the grant equally, or awarding one-half to one recipient and one-quarter to each of the others. It is not uncommon for recipients to donate prize money to benefit scientific, cultural, or humanitarian causes." Encyclopedia Britanica is not a WP:RS because it is, like wikipeda, a summary of secondary sources. You should cite those secondary sources directly. Also, Wise geek is not the greatest ref, but will do for a GA. Is it possible to have at least one reference immediately following the division sentence.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:54, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I removed those, if it is only "ok" for a GA I might just as well find new ones. Found some but I don't think they are enough. Will continue looking.--Esuzu (talk • contribs) 17:37, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Update: Added new sources. They should be OK I hope, if not just tell me and I'll try to find others. Somehow it was hard to get good sources on such a basic part of the Nobel Prize... I moved some of the refs too as you asked me to. --Esuzu (talk • contribs) 18:57, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Question[edit]

About the Recent Laureate's part in the history section. Should it be linked by mainarticle template to List of Nobel Laureates?--Esuzu 18:15, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

yes--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:40, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, added it now. --Esuzu 13:56, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overall review[edit]

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
    We have ironed out many kinks. I have a minor quibble below.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    A couple refs need to be properly formated.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    Tremendous detail
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    Very WP:NPOV for this uncontroversial topic
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
    Clearly.
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    Captions need minor tinkering. Read WP:CAPTION#wording regarding use of periods for complete sentences only. Also, File:Logo of the Nobel prize.jpg needs a FUR for this article.
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    On hold for now.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:10, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for you patience with me and your efforts at improving this article, which I am now happy to pass.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:45, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Remaining issues[edit]

  • "On the 10th of December 1896 Alfred Nobel died at the age of sixty-three after suffering a cerebral haemorrhage. in his villa in San Remo, Italy, where he had lived out the last years of his life." seems to be ungrammatical as two sentences. The second needs a subject and verb or needs to be merged with the first.
    • Somehow there was a dot there instead of a comma. Merged the two sentences. Fixed. --Esuzu (talk • contribs) 19:05, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think "in his villa in San Remo, Italy" needs to be moved to either follow died or sixty-three. It currently remains ungrammatical, to the best of my knowledge.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:10, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I changed it into: "On the 10th of December 1896 Alfred Nobel died, in his villa in San Remo, Italy, at the age of sixty-three after suffering a cerebral haemorrhage." Made it a bit simpler. --Esuzu (talk • contribs) 12:12, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Grammar is not my strong suit, so I am trying to figure out why each iteration has had in his villa set off by commas. It is a normal prepositional phrase, which is not ordinarily set off by commas.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:06, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there a reference stating when "the awards committees began to recognise scientific discoveries that had withstood the test of time." became the new paradigm.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Now that you mention it that paragraph is horribly not-referenced. After some looking around I think I found a couple of reliable sources. --Esuzu (talk • contribs) 17:01, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Now referenced, but does not answer the when question.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:10, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ah sorry, I misunderstood you. I looked into it and it seems impossible to say exactly when it became the new paradigm. However, I added what info I could get hold on. Also I changed wording a bit. It wasn't "consistently" awarded to "discoveries made during the preciding year" in the beginning either. It just happened more often. --Esuzu (talk • contribs) 11:51, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


  • Please refine WP:CAPTIONs in accordance with the secion on wording.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:10, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • If I understood the part correctly that should be done now. --Esuzu (talk • contribs) 13:20, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • The last time I looked at this section, it suggested that full sentences end with periods and other phrases had no ending periods. Please reconsider your captions with this in mind.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:10, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I understood it as that as well and I changed it accordingly, I thought. Nominal phrases is not my strong point however, I look through the article again and again but I can't find any that I directly see is a problem. There is some that I am unsure of though:
  1. "Alexander Fleming receiving the 1945 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine from King Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden." Should there be a dot here?
    No verb. no sentence. no period Sentence if receiving changed to received.
  2. "Giovanni Jona-Lasinio presenting Yoichiro Nambu's Nobel Lecture at Aula Magna, Stockholm in 2008." Here should be no dot right?
    again no verb. no sentence. no period.
  3. These are those I can find... Please help me by pointing out the errors if possible. --Esuzu (talk • contribs) 08:32, 13 February 2010 (UTC
    Will check tomorrow. Working on another issue before I go to bed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 09:07, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Took another look and removed some dots. --Esuzu (talk • contribs) 16:46, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I started to fix them all myself, but there were five that remained wrong. I left the last three. It should be simple. Evaluate where complete sentences end and add a period. If it is not a complete sentence, do not use a period.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:29, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. The Dalai Lama & Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Nobel Peace Prize winners. Photo by Carey Linde, 2004.
  2. Maria Skłodowska-Curie, one of four people who has received the Nobel Prize twice.
  3. A picture of Richard Kuhn who was forced to decline his Nobel Prize in Chemistry.
Thanks! FIxed the last three.--Esuzu (talk • contribs) 08:14, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One of those three continues to have a period and no verb. You either have to add a verb to make it a sentence or change the punctuation.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:03, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am guessing you are talking about the Dalai Lama picture. CHanged the dot in the caption to a comma. --Esuzu (talk • contribs) 05:40, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nobel_Prize/GA3&oldid=1137048220"