Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Leverhulme Medal (Royal Society)

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 promoted by Gimmetrow 23:50, 7 February 2009 [1].

Leverhulme Medal (Royal Society)

This was an easier one; I've tried to fix problems that were raised in my earlier nomination of the Rumford Medal. Enjoy. Ironholds (talk)

Resolved comments from Truco

~~Quick-Fail/~~Comments from Truco (talk · contribs)

The Leverhulme Medal is awarded by the Royal Society every three years 'for an outstandingly significant contribution in the field of pure or applied chemistry or engineering, including chemical engineering". - the name of the article should be bolded not just part of the name, either write its entire name and bold it or just don't bold it all. In addition, why is this article called ____ of the Royal Society" and the other medal list doesn't have that name.
See my reply to Chris below. Ironholds (talk) 02:56, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The lead needs to be expanded like it was in the Rumford Medal list.
Tried to do so; anything else? Ironholds (talk) 03:15, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First/most recent winner/significant winners?--TRUCO 03:36, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Most recent was already there; I've added in the Nobel Prize winners but not the first winner, since he was also one of the Nobel winners and I'd be repeating myself. Ironholds (talk) 04:03, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The table should be formatted correctly as it was in the Rumford Medal list.
How is the table not formatted? Ironholds (talk) 02:57, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See the notes column of your other FLC and this one.--TRUCO 03:36, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They appear identical to me. I've got a bloody massive screen, though, so most things look different. Could you be a bit more specific? Notes section check, refs in it check, em dashes check, 3-column referencing check.. what is wrong?Ironholds (talk) 03:55, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, now they do :P--TRUCO 04:08, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The references should be formatted correctly as it was in the Rumford Medal.
Done. Ironholds (talk) 02:57, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~This list was just expanded, it is unstable for FLC at the moment.~~--TRUCO 19:39, 27 January 2009 (UTC)}}[reply]

Support - I did a general copyedit and my problems were fixed to meet WP:WIAFL.--TRUCO 04:08, 28 January 2009 (UTC)--TRUCO 04:08, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent! Just to keep you on your toes I'll be posting another one in about an hour :P. Ahh, the joys of being a student post-exam season.Ironholds (talk) 04:10, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with all that Truco has to say except for the last. Articles are only considered unstable if "It is not the subject of ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, ". However, the lead needs significant expansion, an image also would be nice. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:28, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed; significant expansion is not something that makes it 'unstable'. Significant expansion followed by an edit war with a user who doesn't agree with said expansion would be unstable. Ironholds (talk) 02:56, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Chrishomingtang

Comment Why is "of the Royal Society" a part of the article title for Leverhulme Medal? Shouldn't it just Leverhulme Medal, similar to Royal Medal, Darwin Medal etc?—Chris! _ct 02:10, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is another medal called the Leverhulme Medal, so Leverhulme Medal acts as a disambig page. I'd be quite happy to move this to the 'proper' title since we don't have an article on the other one. Ironholds (talk) 02:56, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then I suggest you move it to Leverhulme Medal (Royal Society); so that the name remains as ____ Medal with a disambiguation at the end.—Chris! _ct 03:21, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done and done. Ironholds (talk) 03:27, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support looks good —Chris! _ct 19:27, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support In this edit, I fixed everything that I would have normally commented on here. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:46, 31 January 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.