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 Matthewedwards 08:08, 18 July 2009 [1].

Rumford Prize[edit]

Nominator(s): ResMar 19:13, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

I am nominating this for featured list because I think it meats the criteria. ResMar 19:13, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly seems to "meat" criteria... hehe. Anyway, Resident Mario is leaving for vacation today, so I'll be taking this over until he is back, unless it is promoted/archived before then. ceranthor 19:54, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm back. It's 11:34 here so I can't take this on today, but thanks for it Cer. I owe you one. ResMar 03:42, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Chrishomingtang

Comment

  • Notes column seems unnecessary when there are only several notes. Couldn't that be placed in the rationale column?
Done. ResMar 23:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorting doesn't work due to the use of rowspan in the year column. Removing the rowspan should fix the sorting
Fixed. ResMar 00:12, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Too many image used, causing large white space at the bottom. Either shrink the images or remove some of them
Shrunk to 120px. ResMar 23:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

—Chris! ct 22:53, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sorting is not going to work if rowspan is used. So if you have to use rowspan, then sorting has to be removed.—Chris! ct 02:43, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Removed completely. Should work fine now. ResMar 13:25, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Truco

Weak Oppose

General
  • Dabs, external links check out fine.
Lead
  • 'The endowment was created by a bequest of $1000 to the Academy from Benjamin Thompson, or "Count Rumford," in 1796.' -- Is this US Dollar? If so, link to that instead of the article of the symbol itself.
Done. ResMar 00:01, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'The prize is given roughly biannually, with many stops and starts.' --> The prize is mainly given biannually, with various exceptions.
Done; I used "roughly" instead of "mainly" though. ResMar 00:01, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'The award has been given out a total of 62 times to 79 different individuals, and once to a tri-group committee of 21 persons.' -- Is 'persons' an English variant for people?
Fixed. ResMar 00:01, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'As the prize is awarded by the American Academy of Arts and Science, all of the recipients are American, except for one, John Stanley Plaskett, who is from British Columbia.' -- 1)'As the prize' --> Because the prize 2)Why was he an exception?
Grammer fixed. It doesn't say why he was the exception. ResMar 00:01, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No reason can be found with research?--Truco 503 00:13, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lemmie see what I can find on the guy. ResMar 00:19, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's plenty on the guy, and a few mentions of him getting the award (under "awards" and such), but nothing of why he, a Canadian, got it. The award itself doesn't have any large references, either. ResMar 00:28, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, okay then.--Truco 503 19:28, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would expand the lead a bit to explain and summarize the list a bit more, i.e. describe the contributions of some of the significant winners, note some notable winners such as recurring winners in a certain field, etc.
This list follows the model set by the list Rumford Medal, which actually has a shorter lead. Moreover, there's no more informtion about the prize itself to add, and I'm not sure what to add by way of statistics. ResMar 12:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay its fine then.--Truco 503 19:28, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
List
  • I agree with Chris, remove the ref column and just add the note in the rationale column.
Done. ResMar 00:01, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The table does not sort properly, mainly due to the rowspan fields that the table has.
Done. ResMar 00:12, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Images
  • Remove at least four images, too much white space towards the end of the article.
I've shrunk the images down twofold to 120px. I hope it suffices, because removing images means removing all of them, and I truly think that it adds something important to the article. ResMar 00:01, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That won't suffice, you need to manually remove the images. There is still a lot of white space.--Truco 503 00:13, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Define "whitespace." Do you mean the part that's leaning out of alignment with the table? ResMar 00:16, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed one, the last one. ResMar 13:25, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You need to remove at least 3 more. Whitespace is the empty space that is left by the excess of images towards the bottom of the article. For one, its leaves the white space. Second, there should be no images in any other section than those in the section where the table is located. Removing images will not hurt the list in any way.--Truco 503 19:28, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Took out a few more.
References
  • The work for the general references is used incorrectly, it shouldn't be used to explain what the link is about.--Truco 503 23:08, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Moved out. ResMar 00:01, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- On my screen resolution, which is pretty wide, the images run past the section in which the table is in, but others say it doesn't, so it may just be mines. Other than that, previous issues resolved/clarified; list meets WP:WIAFL.--Truco 503 14:53, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Right, well, it's supposed to match up with the recepient's column in the table on the side. That is, John Hare's photo matches John hare's entry. ResMar 22:23, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Right, I was just suggesting you exchange a few older recipients with a few recent ones for a little balance. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 23:29, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. ResMar 14:55, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've arrived at a decent comprimise. How do you deal with having to write the same reason, for example, 4 times? ResMar 14:35, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You could've used a multiple rowspan, but I think I have found a solution. Horizontal rules do not interfere with the sort feature and it still separates the multiple entries and makes it look nice and neat. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 16:13, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Very nice! Works well. ResMar 17:58, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For the 2008 awards, it tells not of their hometown but of their afflications. What should the header be changed to?
I suggest a little research into the hometowns of the recipients. Otherwise, if this info in unavailable, then I would suggest a note of some kind indicating an affiliation with these institutions. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 23:29, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, looking into their bios these towns seem to be where they worked/lived when they recieved the award; so it might change after. I decided to change "Hometown" to "Location" and add a note saying that this is their afflication. I think location embodies the universities as well, though not the Nuclear Threat Initiative. ResMar 14:34, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Issue resolved. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 23:29, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

--ErgoSum•talk•trib 18:58, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. ResMar 22:23, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
AWESOME!! ResMar 16:51, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, I am proven my comical ineptitude to find stuff. I really should learn how to use Gbooks. Anyway, 1,000 was certainly a typo.ResMar 16:51, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It would, wouldn't it? I wonder too. Alas, there's nothing the light of solid resourses on the award on the net; all the information I have is the paragraph describing it on the Academy page. ResMar 13:56, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
ErgoSum's found the answer; see above. ResMar 18:00, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

Fixed. ResMar 21:02, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. It is the American academy, after all. ResMar 21:02, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

not have the period before the quotes.

Fixed. ResMar 21:02, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, none of the images have periods. ResMar 21:02, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, but one of the rationales did, incorrectly, which I corrected. ceranthor 19:56, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I decided to remove the section altogethor, as the same links appear under "General" in the references section. ResMar 21:02, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Changed. ResMar 01:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:23, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All of your concerns have been fixed. ceranthor 19:56, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Actually I perfer the current format. That would make the table a lot longer and squeeze the table cells way longer then they aught to be. ResMar 18:36, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, its age for starters - 1798 was a long, LONG time back, and at the time America was a "new" country of only 20+ years. ResMar 18:21, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I understand it's one of the oldest, but what makes it prestigious? What benefit does it bestow on its recipients for instance? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:30, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A gold and silver medal and bragging rights :) ResMar 13:36, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. ResMar 18:25, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is this a requirement? Rumford Medal, for instance, has none (soory for overusing that example). ResMar 18:55, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not requirement, just a suggestion for a more comprehensive and visually appealing list. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:30, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. ResMar 18:55, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. ResMar 18:36, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. ResMar 18:36, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. ResMar 18:25, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. ResMar 18:55, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this is really what happens when I modify the lead to include more information; in this case, when the award is given and why it is so sporatic. Fixed, hopefully. ResMar 18:29, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain what you mean? It's only used once.ResMar 18:21, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The words "a total of" are redundant in the sentence. You can remove them and the meaning will remain exactly the same. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:30, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. ResMar 13:36, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Camerawork. ResMar 18:21, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I beleive so. That's understandable, but look at the statistics; only one award was awarded to a non-USA resident, and even then they were from neighboring Canada. When Count Rumford awarded the grant for the prize, he simotaneously gave a second grant to the Royal Academy, which awards an award of the same specifications on an international level. (see Rumford Medal) ResMar 18:21, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You need to cite this. You're saying that the reason all recipients (bar one) are US because the prize is given by a US organisation. I think this needs proof. I can see the recipients are, indeed, mainly from the US, but it could be because that's where most of the work in this area of science is conducted. Alternatively, you can remove this sentence which I believe is really just original research. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:30, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is from one of the PDFs dabomb sent me:

Fellows of the Royal Society may, however, not be aware that Count Rumford made at the same time an identical gift of $5ooo to the Honorable John Adams, President of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, to be devoted in the same manner to the authors of discoverie's in any part of the Continent of America, or in any of the American islands . . .

I will add it to the article shortly. ResMar 13:36, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. ResMar 14:06, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. ErgoSum found a nice way to do it :) ResMar 18:21, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
it waqs originally Hometown, but concerns were raised about how in the last row, it easn't their hometown but their place of work/association. ResMar 18:21, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You need to make it clear somewhere in this list where that "Location" is referring to. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:30, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. ceranthor 20:01, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What makes you say that? The table originally had a notes column, but it used almost exclusively one ref, so it was recommended to me to move it under a "General" subheading in the Refs, and later to remove the column altogethor. ResMar 18:21, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The references are fine, it's the italicised text afterwards which is not required. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:30, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Removed. ResMar 14:06, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 08:40, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Several of the issues require information I don't have. There's next-to-nothing by way of information on the prize on the web, and I don't have access to print material (if there is any). So I am unable to address them. ResMar 18:21, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have JSTOR access. Is there anything in particular that you are looking for? Dabomb87 (talk) 19:41, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
According to Bulletin of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, Vol. 22, No. 3 (January 1969), pp. 8–9, it was the oldest science prize in America. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:48, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, lemmi see; information on the founding of the prize, why Samuel Pierpont Langley got both the prize and the Rumford Medal in the same year, why the Canadian John Stanley Plaskett got an award that is typically American...ResMar 19:56, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I sent you an email; can you email me back so that I can email you material? Dabomb87 (talk) 20:19, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. ResMar 20:31, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Oppose from Rambo's Revenge (talk · contribs)

So, I don't see a need for any changes. Jheald (talk) 14:02, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If the text being pulled was only being used to describe the honor of the award for one of the winners on their article page, sure, it's likely short enough that a cite avoids any issue. Using them all is a problem. As there's a way to replace the potentially-creative reasoning for granting the award with free use text (simply citing the field(s) it was won for, and not the whole quote) it avoids any possible copyright issues. --MASEM (t) 14:13, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure you're seeing my point. If those are simply the original citations, we're making a lot of small quotations from different original works, not an extended quotation from one work.
Secondly, IMO the formal citation should be seen as part of the facts of the award, which I think we should be at liberty to report verbatim, as facts. Jheald (talk) 14:22, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the individual statements of reason are likely compiled from other source documents that the awards body generated when granting the award, and their list is only a summation of those. However, our WP article only cites one additional source in addition to the list in the body of the list (that for the most recent award); if it instead cited each individual document, I'd be less concerned because as it is, it smells and acts like a copyright issue. But this is centered around the question of whether the reasoning that the award was given is a non-copyrightable fact or not (if its the former, then there's no question that the table, overall, is not copyrightable like a phone book, and inclusion in the list article here is fine). My concern is that those statements of reason are opinions of why this person was recognized, and thus, even if they are short snippets, are still copyrighted. This is certain far from outright copyright violations, but it is not in the clear. Which is why a cautious approach, including only the fields that were listed for the reasoning of each award, is a safer option than wholesale copyright. But again, I point out that if each of the quotes in the table as they are now were actually sourced to the documents that announced the winner, I'd see less a problem with that. --MASEM (t) 15:08, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

<unquote>
I know I'm going with the minority here, but I do not think this is not a copyright infringment. The descriptions given are the original citations given by the Academy. Although I can certainly modify it to the fields of work, it wouldn't be the same. To Masem, this article has gone through so many changes and shifts, but at the point of nomination it did in fact have a citation for each year, person, and date, in a Notes column. It was seen as too bulky, so the notes was removed and replaced with a single citation under General. Then the column itself was removed as it seemed too big for the few scattered notes within.

This kind of sucks to tell you the truth, I started this as a side project playing second fiddle to Loihi, but it's made the bottom of the list...my first FLC made the bottom of the list...now that's an acomplishment. ResMar 03:42, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would seem the US and the UK have differing opinions on this, I dunno, I'm no copyright lawyer. But I have serious doubts about any "infringement" upon copyrighted material. This is a collection of facts, and no real authorship went into the original list. Having said that, I do believe the proposed changes would actually improve the article, so I can't say I'm against them. I think a less vague explanation of why these people received the medal would be an improvement. Although I'm not sure "Towards his concern" is better than what was there before. I also think anything would be better than reading "For his" ninety times. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 04:29, 11 July 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.
More