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.
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? --
Esuzu19:00, 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 PRAISE19:47, 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. --
Esuzu21:29, 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 --
Esuzu14:21, 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. --
Esuzu16:00, 27 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. --
Esuzu18:59, 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. --
Esuzu14:35, 29 January 2010 (UTC)reply
TTT's Notes
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
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. --
Esuzu17:48, 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... --
Esuzu19:47, 4 February 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 :) --
Esuzu18:03, 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
"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."
"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.
"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."
"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
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?--
Esuzu14:03, 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
"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
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
"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.
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
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
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:
"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.
"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.
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
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
The Dalai Lama & Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Nobel Peace Prize winners. Photo by Carey Linde, 2004.
Maria Skłodowska-Curie, one of four people who has received the Nobel Prize twice.
A picture of Richard Kuhn who was forced to decline his Nobel Prize in Chemistry.
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.
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? --
Esuzu19:00, 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 PRAISE19:47, 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. --
Esuzu21:29, 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 --
Esuzu14:21, 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. --
Esuzu16:00, 27 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. --
Esuzu18:59, 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. --
Esuzu14:35, 29 January 2010 (UTC)reply
TTT's Notes
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
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. --
Esuzu17:48, 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... --
Esuzu19:47, 4 February 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 :) --
Esuzu18:03, 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
"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."
"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.
"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."
"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
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?--
Esuzu14:03, 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
"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
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
"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.
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
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
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:
"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.
"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.
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
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
The Dalai Lama & Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Nobel Peace Prize winners. Photo by Carey Linde, 2004.
Maria Skłodowska-Curie, one of four people who has received the Nobel Prize twice.
A picture of Richard Kuhn who was forced to decline his Nobel Prize in Chemistry.