Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Nobel laureates affiliated with Johns Hopkins University/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured list candidates
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 Scorpion0422 13:41, 8 April 2009 [1].

List of Nobel laureates affiliated with Johns Hopkins University

edit
Nominator(s): — sephiroth bcr (converse)
Toolbox

Another Nobel Prize list. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 07:49, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Truco
Lead
  • Each prize is awarded by a separate committee; the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences awards the Prizes in Physics, Chemistry, and Economics, the Karolinska Institute awards the Prize in Physiology or Medicine, and the Norwegian Nobel Committee awards the Prize in Peace. -- the semi colon should be a colon
Laureates
  • Since the prizes are shared, I feel that the table should be reformatted to show its equality of the prize. Having one name (and the other in small text under it, doesn't show the equality given by the award).
  • My quibble here is that the focus should be on the laureates that are affiliated with the university, not the ones that they shared the prize with. Another column with the co-laureates isn't really useful in this case. The only reason I'm placing the co-laureates is that the rationales ("for their...") sound awkward without acknowledging the co-laureates. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 01:39, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The relation column shouldn't be sortable because there are cells which have more than one entry, and sorting this column wouldn't be representative of every entry.
References
  • Eh, the best way to verify the affiliation is the university-published list, as otherwise we get into a mess of what is considered being "affiliated" or not. Past that, trading out a few random sources for third party sources doesn't really change anything here; the material isn't contentious nor are there issues with verifying the information with primary sources in this case. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 01:39, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suppport Comments Good to see you back at FLC!

  • Only prose issue I see is Truco's colon-semicolon thing.

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:15, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • The bulky table, WP:WEIGHT concerns, the fact this is a standalone list, my unwillingness, among other reasons. Seriously, I know you want to increase standards, but you're taking this a tad bit too far. Simply because material can be merged does not necessarily mean that it should be merged. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 23:24, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Simply because anything can be split doesn't mean should be split. I honestly don't think there is any reason why this page should have been split off. Sure, the table is a tad bulky, but I think it could downsized and merged relatively easily. For example:

Laureate Year Category Relation
Woodrow Wilson 1919 Peace Ph.D., 1886
James Franck
(shared with Gustav Ludwig Hertz) 		1925 Physics Professor of Physics, 1935–38
Nicholas Murray Butler
(shared with Jane Addams) 		1931 Peace Lecturer, 1890–91

I don't think the rationales are needed here, and there are only seven images, so why bother embedding them? I think this page also lacks notability. Sure, the Nobel Prizes are notable, Johns Hopkins University is notable, but why is a list of laureates from this school notable enough for an individual page? The lead summarizes the Nobel Prizes and the list, but it doesn't mention this. The school has its own summary of Nobel laureates from the school [2] and I think that is enough. -- Scorpion0422 16:24, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Rambo's Revenge (talk · contribs)

Firstly, I could not find any concerns with the prose or list as such but do have a few comments.

  • I'm indifferent to the existance of the image column as it is so empty (although I know why it is so empty, and that is not your fault!)
  • I realise that the information is correct and won't change but I have a slight copyvio concern. For example many of the "Relation" entries are copied word for word from the JHU site. It is especially notable for the Agre, Mundell, Nathans and O'Smith entries.
  • Wrt notability, lists like this have always been a grey area on Wikipedia and are difficult to judge and I certainly wouldn't want all of these to have their own list. The only source that links the two events is a primary (JHU) one and WP:N does actually say that "Sources, for notability purposes, should be secondary sources". I realise it would be drastically unfair for me to come down hard on this as so many other lists like this exist (and some are FLs). So I'm happy to see what the community thinks about this.
  • As for the merge, I do see a case for this all going here (or here) without images & rationales.

Rambo's Revenge (How am I doing?) 11:50, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per 3b of the new FL criteria. This is an excellent list, but I no longer believe this list warrants being split off from the main article. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:16, 5 April 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/List_of_Nobel_laureates_affiliated_with_Johns_Hopkins_University/archive1&oldid=1143874289"