Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Savilian Professor of Geometry/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Dabomb87 21:49, 30 March 2010 [1].

Savilian Professor of Geometry[edit]

Savilian Professor of Geometry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Nominator(s): BencherliteTalk 09:07, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

Another list of Oxford professors for your amusement. This one includes such stars as Edmond Halley, after whom the comet is named. All comments gratefully received. BencherliteTalk 09:07, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 08:21, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Do our whole audience know what a "classical scholar" is?
  • (Repeat warning) Also, might there be something specific to which you could link Warden and Provost in this context?
  • I'm wondering if there's a legitimate case to link geometry in this article..
    • Found one usage to wikilink
  • Pending comment - the first was "appointed" while, say, Titchmarsh applied. I'm hoping to learn in subsequent paragraphs how the position has been/is selected.
    • Have now found a copy of Savile's original provisions and will try and add more detail. In short, he reserved the right to appoint during his lifetime, then gave the power to elect to various worthies such as the Archbish of Canterbury, Bishop of London, Lord Chief Justice, Lord High Executioner etc. In the late 19th century, this was changed as per the article; then (from what I can tell) the whole system of university statutes was reformed in the late 1990s/early 2000s, removing specific rules for appointment boards for professorships.
    • Update, now done.
  • " degree at a minimum" (my own ignorance warning here) I would as "as a minimum" here, but that could my own poor upbringing...
    • Typo fixed
  • Euclid et al get a link but not Aristotle or Plato. How rude..
    • Linked. I'll apologise to them in person for my rudeness next time I see them
  • "in basic mathematics in English" did I miss the bit where the instructions would be otherwise provided in a foreign language?
    • Education was in Latin in those days, added this in brackets (in fact some Oxford formal ceremonies are still in Latin although fortunately the lectures aren't. Well, not in Law, anyway. Although I had to study Roman Law, so there was some Latin there...)
  • I'd link ∞.
    • Didn't think of that
  • "it seems that " not tremendously encouraging, can you say why it "seems" this way?
    • Because the source says so, I think. I'll double-check
    • Update: source made reference to Gregory's name appearing in a rate-book in 1701, so explained this
  • Halley, while prominent, doesn't need to be linked in every section of the article...
    • Delinked a bit
  • Stow on the Wold is actually Stow-on-the-Wold.
    • "- - -" added
  • "brother at the age of 15, a year before he entered Cambridge" who entered Cambridge?
    • Reworded
  • Betts' description is a sea of blue links. I don't often get too worked up about but there you go, anything you could do about it?
    • reworded slightly, Prime Minister delinked
  • "run (unsuccessfully) an evening " don't like this construct, I'd prefer just "unsuccessfully run an".
    • And now you have it
  • I'm wondering, second wrangler ought to be Second Wrangler per our own article.
    • OK
  • " The Times in its obituary called him" - commas after Times and obit.
    • Reworded as "In his obituary, The Times called him..." for one comman rather than two
  • You say where some Oxford and London colleges are, is it worth clarifying that Princeton is in New Jersey? And St Catherine's is not clearly located.
    • NJ added. Reworded the rest of the sentence to put Catz near Oxford without repeating the O-word
  • "University of California Berkeley" missing a comma after California.
    • Added.

The Rambling Man (talk) 19:30, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Goodraise 21:53, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Goodraise (talk · contribs)
  • "his successor Nathaniel Bliss both held the post of Astronomer Royal in addition to the professorship" - The word both seems unnecessary.
    • Well, it's both Bliss and Halley, not both AR + chair; reworded anyway.
  • "after alleging assaulting another student" - The word allegedly would make more sense to me here.
    • Typo, fixed
  • "'neither numerous or great importance.'" - In the cited source, it says "neither numerous nor of great importance."
    • Well-spotted, thanks
  • "one of the few exceptions to his claim that nothing he had done ... had made ... 'the least difference to the amenity of the world'." - In whose opinion?
    • The clue's in the phrase "his claim"... reworded to "his own claim" to make it even clearer
      • Whose claim it is was perfectly clear even without the added own (which I'd prefer to see removed again). What I wish to know is who thinks that the Hardy–Weinberg principle is an exception. Goodraise 18:42, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Hitchin taught in the United States at Princeton University in New Jersey and at New York University, returning to Wolfson College for further research before becoming a fellow and tutor at St Catherine's College." - He returned to Wolfson while teaching at Princeton and NYU?
    • No, but reworded to resolve the slight ambiguity
  • File:James Joseph Sylvester.jpg states that the image is in the public domain because its author has died more than 70 years ago, but it doesn't say who the author is.
  • References 33 and 34 give the cited website's domain name (shawprize.org) instead of its publishing entity (The Shaw Prize Foundation) or the website's name (The Shaw Prize).
    • Well, in my defence, that's how they are cited on the FL Shaw Prize... switched to "The Shaw Prize Foundation"
  • The notes section could use some citations. (In case you're wondering, here's an example of how to do it.)
    • Cumbersome, isn't it? Added
  • Most alt texts are somewhat dry and colorless, not really aiding the reader in visualizing the depicted persons. This is not a deal breaker though.
    • Good, I'll leave it then, unless you have any specific ideas for describing a succession of middle-aged/elderly white academics in any better way than I have done....

Goodraise 09:10, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for your review, and for that handy demonstration of how to give a footnote for a reference, which I hadn't seen before. No doubt I'll speed up with it with some more practice! BencherliteTalk 14:56, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Goodraise 22:31, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support. Alt texts have some room for improvement. Otherwise, the list meets the criteria. Goodraise 21:53, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, but I'd like to try and get this to a regular support if I can. So, once again, if you have any specific ideas for improvement, I'll see what I can do to try and improve the alt texts. I'm afraid that saying they are "somewhat dry and colorless" doesn't really help me, frankly, particularly given the limited material I have to work with here. BencherliteTalk 23:36, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Funnily enough, I know about WP:ALT, having written the odd FL and FA since the world went alt-crazy. What I was hoping for from you were some specific comments for how the alt text falls short of what you think that it could be, not a "vague wave" (as it were) at a style guideline. Given the OR / not-obvious-to-a-non-expert descriptions at WP:ALT#Portraits, though, I think my alt texts are fine as they are, . (Where's the "low bun" in the second portrait? It's pure guesswork that it's there at the back of her head. "Slender" - really? Hard to say either way. "Her deep-set eyes gaze solemnly over the viewer's shoulder." Oh please, are we writing Mills and Boon now? In the first: "Edwardian-style" - says who? "In her forties" - looks younger to me. You get the point.) As I've asked twice now and you haven't given me any specific examples of how to improve the alts, which is a shame, I'll think I'll leave this point and settle for your support being lukewarm. BencherliteTalk 20:10, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings. I didn't mean to imply that you didn't know about WP:ALT. I meant what I said, nothing more.
    My initial (now capped) comment was not a vague wave at a guideline (I didn't even mention or link WP:ALT from there). As for giving specific examples, what for? You seem to be perfectly aware as to how your alt texts go against the guideline and seem to have made them so intentionally. You may think that your alt texts are superior and maybe they are, but that doesn't matter to me. My votes are based on whether I think an article conforms with the criteria (including linked guidelines) rather than with what I think is best. Goodraise 00:41, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • No feelings hurt by your reference to WP:ALT, don't worry. However, as for your questionable assertions, without any evidence, that I've "intentionally" written alt texts to violate a guideline and that I'm "perfectly aware" of how they fall short, I would have thought that the fact I twice asked for how they could be improved (and you ignored my question first time, and gave a "vague wave" the second time) was actually fairly good proof that I was genuinely trying to improve the alt texts and was welcoming—nay, asking for—suggestions on how this could be done. If I didn't want to make you happier with the alt text, I would have left your "weak support" comment alone and not tried to get an upgrade. As you can see, I have my doubts as to the alt-text concept and how to use it, but that doesn't mean that I'm deliberately trying to write a list that doesn't comply with the guideline. Interesting that you hadn't actually said before your last comment that the current alt text violates the guideline; your initial comment was that it could do with "some improvement", examples of which you steadfastly refuse to give. Go ahead; "I'm listening..." BencherliteTalk 11:13, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Most of my concerns have been addressed by the nominator. The one that hasn't has become invalid because of recent developments at WP:ALT. Goodraise 22:31, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question How did you derive the inflation factor from 1620 to 2010 which makes £150 equal to £24,000? (and shouldn't be 2009, not 2010?).Sandman888 (talk) 10:00, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Using ref 4 I would suggest? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:17, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • What I mean is I'd like the formula used which gives a factor of 24,000/150 Sandman888 (talk) 11:10, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's generated by {{inflation}}. BencherliteTalk 19:52, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • The source provided doesn't have the inflation rate for 2010. Neither is it an entirely routine calculation, so it might be helpful to write how it's calculated Sandman888 (talk) 22:08, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Fair point, I've changed it to "in present day terms", which is the wording suggested by {{inflation/doc}} (hadn't spotted that before). As for setting out the calculation to avoid it being "original research" (which is I assume what you're getting at with your link to the essay WP:NOTOR), well, no. (1) It's a calculation carried out by an established template; (2) it can be replicated from the website if one chooses to do so; (3) updating an old value for inflation is a routine calculation, I think. I'm not going to give a footnote along the lines of "to work out the present value of £150 from 1620, we divide £150 by the RPI figure for 1620 and multiply it by the most recently available figure". BencherliteTalk 22:52, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Given that none of the persons are redlinked, I'd prefer if the educational background was skipped so the 'Notes' column would focus on their contribution to science, which, I presume, is why the list is noteworthy Sandman888 (talk) 14:00, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, that's the first time I've been asked to make an FLC less informative, I think. I'd prefer to keep it, as in a university-based list, it's interesting (I think) to see which of the names were educated there and which were educated elsewhere. BencherliteTalk 19:52, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Staxringold talkcontribs 04:47, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
*Comments
  • I've wondered this since I reviewed Bodley's Librarian, given the limited number of entries and relatively few things gained from the sortability of the table, is there any particular reason the data is formatted in a table and not as a text list like List of Major League Baseball awards? I would never ever ever oppose over something like this, just a theoretical question. I would think it would both remove the large whitespace for the fields with less text and avoid squishing the notes. Staxringold talkcontribs 20:57, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you think the inclusion of "professor from" or "professor" as a parenthetical note in the prose (John Smith (professor 1988-2010)) is necessary? I get that you want to avoid it looking like their birth and death dates or something like that, but every list I've worked on generally assumed the parentheticals were referring to that list and only had notes if it was absolutely necessary. List of Boston Red Sox first-round draft picks, for example, simply lists their draft years in () except when discussing the MVP winners (to make it clear those are draft years, not their MVP-winning years). Couldn't most of these instances read "The life and work of James Sylvester (1883-1894)", eg? Staxringold talkcontribs 20:57, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you clarify what exactly the duties of the position are following the removal of geometry lecturing requirements to suit Titchmarsh? The article mentions it, but I don't quite get what this means for the position. Is it now more of just a "Savilian Professor of Math" or what? Staxringold talkcontribs 20:57, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the most part though, excellent read. Staxringold talkcontribs 20:57, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments.
  • As for the "text vs table" approach, I think the text approach works for List of Major League Baseball awards because it's a list of supporting lists (and, indeed, the lead article/list of an excellent Featured Topic of lists). Here, I've got a list of supporting articles, and so I wonder if having it as a text-only format (and losing such sortability as there is) would make it look too much like an article, leading to the "go to GA" review from less discerning reviewers, at the very least. I think for shorter lists of professors (e.g. Jesus Professor of Celtic), text might be the way, since a table would add very little.
  • I agree that's the thing to do with shorter lists, I guess I just consider this a reasonably short list. And, while there is some sortability, it's not like coaches lists or whatever which are dominated by stats and thus gain a lot from the table format. Staxringold talkcontribs 02:23, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm in two minds about the year ranges. I can see that in many instances, it's clearly not a YOB-YOD range and so isn't ambiguous. But for "John Wallis (professor 1649–1703)", it could be either and overall I think it's best to be clear and say "professor X-Y" for all, lest someone think that whenever it's not said, it's the more usual birth-death range. For the draft lists, there's no range so no similar ambiguity arises. I'm finding out far more than I ever knew before about baseball, by the way, through reading your comparisons - my previous baseball experience was a rain-affected match somewhere in the NYC suburbs in September 1996... I forget who was playing, but boy did it rain that night...
  • Heh, sorry about that. As you might see from my userpage baseball-content dominates my Wikipedia contributions, so will tend to dominate my range of experience to compare against. Staxringold talkcontribs 02:23, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • As for present duties of the professor, as I understand it, the university statutes and regulations no longer specify what he has to teach; no doubt his contractual terms and conditions will say something, and then I assume any loose ends will be sorted out by agreement with the other professors in the mathematics institute. I've added a ref saying that he's one of the members of the Maths Institute's Geometry Group of researchers, so it'd be fair to say that geometry is still a part of the professors' work, despite Titchmarsh!
Let me know if I can improve further. BencherliteTalk 22:28, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Like I said, it's quite solid. I'll give it another look see, but probably cap/support quite soon. Staxringold talkcontribs 02:23, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from KV5

Some very light issues, not much to complain about here at all:

  • "Savile reserved to himself" - is "reserved to himself" a British English turn of phrase? Reserved for himself sounds better to my American ears (as in He reserved the right for himself if the sentence is restructured), but you all are the experts over there.
    • Yes, that works in Brit Eng.
  • "straight away" - is that two words or one... or can it be either?
    • My Concise Oxford Dictionary tells me that "straight away" is Brit Eng and "straightaway" is US Eng...
  • In Wallis: "He was appointed as keeper of the university archives in 1658"
    • Zapped.

That's really it! Good work. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 12:32, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support — KV5 (Talk • Phils) 15:09, 30 March 2010 (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/Savilian_Professor_of_Geometry/archive1&oldid=1143872412"